High Court · 2025

Heard Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 1. petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main

2. relief:- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19/04/2024 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Revision No.240 of 2024; contained as Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition and also quash the impugned orders dated 01/02/2021 passed by the opposite party no.2 and 24/01/2019 passed by the opposite party no.3, contained as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 respectively to this Writ Petition. (ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the shops of the petitioner over Gata No.1437/1 (New No. 1293) and 1437/2, New No.1305)."

3. Indisputably the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 was passed by opposite party No.3/Consolidation Officer, Tehsil - Kadipur, District Sultanpur (in short "C.O.") in exercise of power under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954") made under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). For ready reference, Rule 109-A of the Rules of 1954 is extracted hereunder :- "109-A. Section 52(2). - (1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub-division, the Tahsildar, the Naib- Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the 2 Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid. (2) If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub- rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed." From sub-rule 3 of rule 109-A of the Rules of 1954, it is evident 4. that against an order passed in exercise of powers under Rule 109-A (1) no appeal would lie.

5. The order impugned dated 24.01.2019 was passed after taking note of the order dated 29.11.2018, passed by the C.O. as also the facts pertaining to the entries in the revenue record prior to the order dated 09.07.1981, which was favourable to the petitioner. It would be apt to indicate that prior to the order dated 09.07.1981 6. the land of Gata No.1437/1 and Gata No.1437/2 area 2-5- was recorded in the name of Bhagwati S/o Neemar.

7. The order dated 29.11.2018 is on record as Annexure No.9 (page 53 of the present writ petition) and this order indicates that the same has been passed on the basis of order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short "S.O.C.") dated 12.07.2013. Vide order dated 12.07.2013, the S.O.C. set aside the order dated

8. 09.07.1981 passed by the C.O., which was favourable to the petitioner. The order dated 29.11.2018 was recalled on the application

9. preferred by the petitioner, vide order dated 25.02.2025. In the aforesaid background of the case, being aggrieved by the 10. order dated 24.01.2019, the appeal was filed by the petitioner under Rule 109-A (3) of the Rules of 1954, which was registered as Appeal No. 281 of 2021. 3

11. This appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 01.02.2021 by the S.O.C. Order dated 01.02.2021 is justified for the reason that initial order dated 24.01.2019 was passed in exercise of power under Rule 109 (A) (1) of the Rules of 1954.

12. The revisional authority namely Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "D.D.C.") vide dated 19.04.2024 dismissed the Revision No. 1033/2023 (Computerized Case No.202354046800001033) (Ramneval Vs. Bhagauti) under Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953. The revision aforesaid was also not maintainable as the appeal 13. itself was not maintainable. Thus, the revisional authority has not committed any error in dismissing the revision. This petition is based upon the fact that the order dated 29.11.2018 14. was recalled and as such subsequent order dated 24.01.2019 based upon the order dated 29.11.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

15. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that in the instant matter no interference is required. It is for the following reasons :- (i) Order dated 12.07.2013, passed by the S.O.C., whereby the S.O.C. set aside the order dated 09.07.1981, favourable to the petitioner, is intact as the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.07.1983 was dismissed way back on 19.04.2024, i.e. Revision No. 1606/2022 (Computerized Case No.202254046800001606) (Ramneval Vs. Bhagauti). (ii) The petitioner is appearing before the Consolidation Officer who is proceeding in the matter in terms of the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the S.O.C. (iii) The aforesaid facts have not been refuted in the instant petition. (iv) In terms of the order of S.O.C. dated 12.07.2013, the entries which were existing when the order was passed prior to passing of the order dated 09.07.1981, set aside by the order dated 12.07.2013, ought to have been entered into the revenue record and the same have been entered in terms of the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 affirmed by order dated 01.02.2021 and subsequently affirmed by the order of D.D.C. dated 19.04.2024. (v) The name of the petitioner cannot be entered into the revenue record as his name was entered into in compliance of the order of C.O. 4 dated 09.07.1981, which was set aside vide order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the S.O.C.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

17. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some direction may be issued to the Consolidation Officer to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously for the reason that the first order in the proceedings was passed on 09.07.1981.

18. Taking note of the aforesaid, the C.O. concerned is directed to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously, say within a period of six months, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment, after granting full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 1. petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main

2. relief:- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19/04/2024 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Revision No.240 of 2024; contained as Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition and also quash the impugned orders dated 01/02/2021 passed by the opposite party no.2 and 24/01/2019 passed by the opposite party no.3, contained as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 respectively to this Writ Petition. (ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the shops of the petitioner over Gata No.1437/1 (New No. 1293) and 1437/2, New No.1305)."

3. Indisputably the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 was passed by opposite party No.3/Consolidation Officer, Tehsil - Kadipur, District Sultanpur (in short "C.O.") in exercise of power under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954") made under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). For ready reference, Rule 109-A of the Rules of 1954 is extracted hereunder :- "109-A. Section 52(2). - (1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub-division, the Tahsildar, the Naib- Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the 2 Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid. (2) If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub- rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed." From sub-rule 3 of rule 109-A of the Rules of 1954, it is evident 4. that against an order passed in exercise of powers under Rule 109-A (1) no appeal would lie.

5. The order impugned dated 24.01.2019 was passed after taking note of the order dated 29.11.2018, passed by the C.O. as also the facts pertaining to the entries in the revenue record prior to the order dated 09.07.1981, which was favourable to the petitioner. It would be apt to indicate that prior to the order dated 09.07.1981 6. the land of Gata No.1437/1 and Gata No.1437/2 area 2-5- was recorded in the name of Bhagwati S/o Neemar.

7. The order dated 29.11.2018 is on record as Annexure No.9 (page 53 of the present writ petition) and this order indicates that the same has been passed on the basis of order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short "S.O.C.") dated 12.07.2013. Vide order dated 12.07.2013, the S.O.C. set aside the order dated

8. 09.07.1981 passed by the C.O., which was favourable to the petitioner. The order dated 29.11.2018 was recalled on the application

9. preferred by the petitioner, vide order dated 25.02.2025. In the aforesaid background of the case, being aggrieved by the 10. order dated 24.01.2019, the appeal was filed by the petitioner under Rule 109-A (3) of the Rules of 1954, which was registered as Appeal No. 281 of 2021. 3

11. This appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 01.02.2021 by the S.O.C. Order dated 01.02.2021 is justified for the reason that initial order dated 24.01.2019 was passed in exercise of power under Rule 109 (A) (1) of the Rules of 1954.

12. The revisional authority namely Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "D.D.C.") vide dated 19.04.2024 dismissed the Revision No. 1033/2023 (Computerized Case No.202354046800001033) (Ramneval Vs. Bhagauti) under Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953. The revision aforesaid was also not maintainable as the appeal 13. itself was not maintainable. Thus, the revisional authority has not committed any error in dismissing the revision. This petition is based upon the fact that the order dated 29.11.2018 14. was recalled and as such subsequent order dated 24.01.2019 based upon the order dated 29.11.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

15. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that in the instant matter no interference is required. It is for the following reasons :- (i) Order dated 12.07.2013, passed by the S.O.C., whereby the S.O.C. set aside the order dated 09.07.1981, favourable to the petitioner, is intact as the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.07.1983 was dismissed way back on 19.04.2024, i.e. Revision No. 1606/2022 (Computerized Case No.202254046800001606) (Ramneval Vs. Bhagauti). (ii) The petitioner is appearing before the Consolidation Officer who is proceeding in the matter in terms of the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the S.O.C. (iii) The aforesaid facts have not been refuted in the instant petition. (iv) In terms of the order of S.O.C. dated 12.07.2013, the entries which were existing when the order was passed prior to passing of the order dated 09.07.1981, set aside by the order dated 12.07.2013, ought to have been entered into the revenue record and the same have been entered in terms of the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 affirmed by order dated 01.02.2021 and subsequently affirmed by the order of D.D.C. dated 19.04.2024. (v) The name of the petitioner cannot be entered into the revenue record as his name was entered into in compliance of the order of C.O. 4 dated 09.07.1981, which was set aside vide order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the S.O.C.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

17. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some direction may be issued to the Consolidation Officer to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously for the reason that the first order in the proceedings was passed on 09.07.1981.

18. Taking note of the aforesaid, the C.O. concerned is directed to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously, say within a period of six months, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment, after granting full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench