Satyapal Singh & others v. Yashpal Singh & others

Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 4 in person, alongwith Sri Rama Kant Giri, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, Advocate, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5/Kamlesh Bahadur Singh and Sri Shaket Tripathi, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 7/Gudlesh Pratap Singh in the Court today, which is taken on record. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the rest of the private-respondents is hereby dispensed with. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CETIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 17.4.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (Administration), District- Barabanki in appeal No. 410 of 2025 "Satyapal Singh & others Versus Yashpal Singh & others" whereby the learned Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki has denied to stay the implementation of order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gonda in Case No. 005 of 1990-1991 "Khelawan Versus Bratpal & others" and also denied to the stay of proceeding initiated under Rule 109 of U.P. C.H. Rules 1954 by the Kamlesh Bahadur Singh which has been registered as Case No. 18/2024 before the Consolidation Officer (Naveen), Gonda, during pendency of the Appeal No. 410 of 2025 "Satyapal Singh & others Versus Yashpal Singh & others", as contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CETIORARI thereby quashing the impugned findings recoded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki in its order dated 17.4.2025 stating therein that it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 11(1) of U.P. C.H. Act 1953 is time-barred and no application under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act has been filed. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party No. 2, the Settlement officer Consolidation (Admn.), Barabanki to decide the appeal No. 410 of 2025 under section 11(1) of U.P. C.H. Act 1953 "Satya Pal Singh & others Versus Yash Pal Singh & others", on merit and further, till disposal of appeal, parties maintain status-quo in all respectful (including the land in question)." On being confronted, after taking note of the statutory provision i.e. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the law propounded on the maintainability of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and also that the vide impugned order dated 17.04.2025, the Settlement Officer Consolidation (Administration), Barabanki (in short "SOC") वयवसथय उनचत हह। तरनतसयर अनतररम उपचयर पयथरनय- ममकक पर नकसज पकयर कय नववयर उतपन न करक। शयशनत- protected the interest of the parties by saying that ' अतत उभयपकक कक ननररनशत नकयय जयतय हह नक नववयनरत आरयजज पर, वयवसथय बनययक रखक। उभयपक नववयनरत आरयजज कक बयबत नकसज पकयर कय कय- नवकय न करक। ममकक पर यथयससथनत बनययक रखक। पकक दयरय पसततत नवधध- पत अपजलकतयरगण सतयपयल धसशह आनर ननसतयररत नकयय जयतय हह।' and also the spirit of Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954") made under the Act of 1953 and also that the issue of maintainability of appeal has not been decided till date, Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 4 in person, and Sri Rama Kant Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, say that that justice would suffice if this petition, without acceding the main reliefs sought quoted above, is disposed of with a direction to SOC to consider and decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal first after taking note various pronouncements on the subject, which would be placed before SOC, and thereafter proceed to consider the prayer related to staying the proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954 for which liberty be given to the petitioners to move fresh interim relief application, if possible on the next date fixed in the appeal i.e. on 02.05.2025, as informed, and if it is not possible for some reasons, then within a period of one month from the next date fixed in the appeal, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, and thereafter, conclude the proceedings of the appeal pending before it within the time as specified by this Court. The aforesaid has not been opposed. Taking note of the aforesaid, without interfering in the impugned order(s), the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to SOC to consider and decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal first after taking note various pronouncements on the subject if placed before him and thereafter proceed to consider the interim relief application for which liberty, as prayed for, is provided, after taking note of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 361 of 2022 (Ram Bahadur and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and others) and Writ-B No. 1962 of 2022 (Smt. Jyoti Jaisawal vs. Additional District Magistrate and others), if possible on the next date fixed in the appeal i.e. on 02.05.2025, as informed, and if it is not possible for some reasons, then within a period of one month from the next date fixed in the appeal, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, and thereafter, conclude the proceedings of the appeal pending before it most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of four months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority/Court concerned shall be free to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 4 in person, alongwith Sri Rama Kant Giri, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, Advocate, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5/Kamlesh Bahadur Singh and Sri Shaket Tripathi, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 7/Gudlesh Pratap Singh in the Court today, which is taken on record. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the rest of the private-respondents is hereby dispensed with. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CETIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 17.4.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (Administration), District- Barabanki in appeal No. 410 of 2025 "Satyapal Singh & others Versus Yashpal Singh & others" whereby the learned Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki has denied to stay the implementation of order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gonda in Case No. 005 of 1990-1991 "Khelawan Versus Bratpal & others" and also denied to the stay of proceeding initiated under Rule 109 of U.P. C.H. Rules 1954 by the Kamlesh Bahadur Singh which has been registered as Case No. 18/2024 before the Consolidation Officer (Naveen), Gonda, during pendency of the Appeal No. 410 of 2025 "Satyapal Singh & others Versus Yashpal Singh & others", as contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CETIORARI thereby quashing the impugned findings recoded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki in its order dated 17.4.2025 stating therein that it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 11(1) of U.P. C.H. Act 1953 is time-barred and no application under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act has been filed. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party No. 2, the Settlement officer Consolidation (Admn.), Barabanki to decide the appeal No. 410 of 2025 under section 11(1) of U.P. C.H. Act 1953 "Satya Pal Singh & others Versus Yash Pal Singh & others", on merit and further, till disposal of appeal, parties maintain status-quo in all respectful (including the land in question)." On being confronted, after taking note of the statutory provision i.e. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the law propounded on the maintainability of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and also that the vide impugned order dated 17.04.2025, the Settlement Officer Consolidation (Administration), Barabanki (in short "SOC") वयवसथय उनचत हह। तरनतसयर अनतररम उपचयर पयथरनय- ममकक पर नकसज पकयर कय नववयर उतपन न करक। शयशनत- protected the interest of the parties by saying that ' अतत उभयपकक कक ननररनशत नकयय जयतय हह नक नववयनरत आरयजज पर, वयवसथय बनययक रखक। उभयपक नववयनरत आरयजज कक बयबत नकसज पकयर कय कय- नवकय न करक। ममकक पर यथयससथनत बनययक रखक। पकक दयरय पसततत नवधध- पत अपजलकतयरगण सतयपयल धसशह आनर ननसतयररत नकयय जयतय हह।' and also the spirit of Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954") made under the Act of 1953 and also that the issue of maintainability of appeal has not been decided till date, Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 4 in person, and Sri Rama Kant Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, say that that justice would suffice if this petition, without acceding the main reliefs sought quoted above, is disposed of with a direction to SOC to consider and decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal first after taking note various pronouncements on the subject, which would be placed before SOC, and thereafter proceed to consider the prayer related to staying the proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954 for which liberty be given to the petitioners to move fresh interim relief application, if possible on the next date fixed in the appeal i.e. on 02.05.2025, as informed, and if it is not possible for some reasons, then within a period of one month from the next date fixed in the appeal, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, and thereafter, conclude the proceedings of the appeal pending before it within the time as specified by this Court. The aforesaid has not been opposed. Taking note of the aforesaid, without interfering in the impugned order(s), the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to SOC to consider and decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal first after taking note various pronouncements on the subject if placed before him and thereafter proceed to consider the interim relief application for which liberty, as prayed for, is provided, after taking note of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 361 of 2022 (Ram Bahadur and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and others) and Writ-B No. 1962 of 2022 (Smt. Jyoti Jaisawal vs. Additional District Magistrate and others), if possible on the next date fixed in the appeal i.e. on 02.05.2025, as informed, and if it is not possible for some reasons, then within a period of one month from the next date fixed in the appeal, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, and thereafter, conclude the proceedings of the appeal pending before it most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of four months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority/Court concerned shall be free to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench