Tariq Yusuf others Sri Syed v. Sikandar Khan) along

the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025; Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents in both the petitions; Shri Adi Nigam, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025.

3. In WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, the petitioners namely Tariq Yusu Aziz S/o Late Syed Abdul Aziz and Km. Saba Qamar D/o Late Qamar Mahmood have sought the following main relief(s) :- "(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 alleged to be passed by Opposite Party No. 4 in Case No. 202/2024 (Tariq Yusuf others Sri Syed vs. Sikandar Khan) along with connected Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar vs. Sikandar Khan), as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 alleged to be passed by Opposite Party No. 7 and 10 in Case No. 43/2025 (Tariq Yusuf Aziz vs Sikandar Khan) along with Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar vs. Sikandar Khan) under section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this writ petition (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 to conduct inquiry and take action against Opposite Party No. 8, 9 and 10 with respect to allegations raised in present writ petition with regard to deliberate abuse of power by adopting corrupt practice to legalise the fraudulent proceedings of opposite party no. 9 and deliberately treating forged documents filed by opposite party no. 9 to be genuine.

4. In WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025, the petitioner namely Sikandar Khan S/o Late Shahjahan Khan has sought the following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, during the pendency of the present petition. (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition)."

5. In both the petitions, the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC") in exercise of power under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") has been impeached.

6. From the facts indicated hereinafter, based upon the record, it would be apt to indicate at this stage that description of the cases in the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC, indicated below, appears to be a typographical error. (i) Case No. 202 of 2024, Computerized Case No. 2018531046000075, (Tariq Yusuf Aziz and others Vs. Sikandar Khan). (ii) Case No. 201 of 2024, Computerized Case No. 2021531046000009, (Saba Qamar Vs. Sikandar Khan)

7. Prayer (ii) sought in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, quoted above, is in two parts.

8. First part relates to order dated 15.01.2025 and second part relates to quashing of proceedings of Case No. 43/2025 (Tariq Yusuf Aziz Vs. Sikandar Khan) as also of Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar Vs. Sikandar Khan), under Section 9A(2) of Act of 1953.

9. In so far as, second part of the prayer aforesaid is concerned i.e. prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 43/2025 and Case No. 201/2024, the same cannot be acceded in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacky vs. Tiny, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 508, followed recently in the case of K. Valarmathi & Ors. Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 INSC 606. Accordingly, it is rejected.

10. In order to come to the conclusion as to whether the impugned order(s) dated 24.09.2024 and 15.01.2025 require interference by this Court, this Court took note of the following relevant facts :- (i) An order was passed on 19.01.1989 by the DDC in Revision No. 826/939/1004/88-89 (Sikandar Khan Vs. Vilkis Begaum and Others), under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. (ii) On coming to know about the order dated 19.01.1989, the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025 preferred an application dated 20.06.2018 for recall of order dated 19.01.1989 and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.02.2021. (iii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2021, Sikandar Khan preferred Writ Petition No. 7502 (Consolidation) of 2021 (Sikandar Khan Vs. D.D.C. Lucknow & Ors.) before this Court. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2021, affirmed the order dated

04.02.2021. (iv) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that vide order dated

04.02.2021, the DDC after recalling of final order dated 19.01.1989, fixed the revision for 18.02.2021 for the purposes of hearing of parties. (v) After dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 18.03.2021, whereby the order dated 04.02.2021 was affirmed, the DDC proceeded in the matter and after considering various facts of the case passed the final order dated 24.09.2024. Relevant portion of the same, which is impugned, is extracted herein-under :- -20.08.1986 -04.02.2021 " उपररक ववववचनन सव एवव पतनवलल मम सवलग सनकयय सव यह सपष हह वक पपवर पलठनसलन दनरन वनगरननल सव0-826/939/1004/88-89 वनद ससकनदर खनव बननम ववलवकस बवगम आवद मम वनररय वदननवक-04.02.2021 दनरन पपवर पनररत आदवश वदननवक-19.01.1989 वनरसत हर चचकन हह। इस सतर पर पकय दनरन वनगरननल मम रखव गयव मननय तथय वनवररत हरनव थव। सजसमम बनदरबसत असधकनरल चकबनदल कव आदवश वदननवक-20.08.1986 मम एवव चकबनदल असधकनरल कव आदवश वदननवक-09.06.1982 कन परलकर हरनन थन। दरनय -19.01.1989 कर फजर एवव आदवशय कक पतनवलल उपलबध नहह हह और आदवश वदननवक कप टरवचत इस नयनयनलय दनरन पपवर मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक मम मननन जन चचकन हह। ऐसव मम आदवश वदननवक कक मपल पतनवलल जब तक नहह हरगल तब तक ववसधक परलकर वकयन जननन समभव नहह हह। ऐसव मम वनगरननल 0-2018531046000075 सव 0- 202/2024 तनररक यचसचफ अजलज आवद 0- वनगरननल सव एवव ससकनदर खनव बननम 2021531046000009 सवयचक रप सव वनसतनररत कक जनतल हह। आदवश बनदरबसत - असधकनरल चकबनदल वदननवक 09.06.1982 वनरसत वकयन जनतन हह। वनद चकबनदल असधकनरल सररजनलनगर - वनदरश कव सनथ पतयनववतरत वकयन जनतन हह वक सवरपथम मपल नयनयनलय पर इस वदशन पतनवलल गठन करकव पकय कन सचनवनयल एवव सनकय कन अवसर दवतव हहए तथन समसत तथयय कर दवखतव हहए वनद मनह मम वनवररत करम। वनगरननल नयनयनलय मम पपवर पनररत आदवश एवव उसकव पभनव अवर नयनयनलय पर बनधयकनरल पभनव नहह रखमगव। चकबनदल असधकनरल गनवव सभन एवव सरकनर कर भल आवशयक पककनर बननकर कनयरवनहल करम। पक वदननवक-10.10.2024 कर यहल आदवश दरनय वनगरनवनयय पर पभनवल हरगन। एवव चकबनदल असधकनरल कन 0-309/2021 -20.08.1986

09.06.1982 कन वनद सव वनद सव वदननवक 03 एवव कव चकबनदल असधकनरल सररजनलनगर कव नयनयनलय मम उपससथत हय। पतनवलल बनद आवशयक कनयरवनहल दनसखल दफतर हर।" (vi) A bare perusal of relevant portion of the impugned order dated

24.09.2024, quoted above, indicates as under. (a) The order of remand has been passed after taking note of the fact that the original file of the case decided by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Lucknow (in short "CO") vide order dated 09.06.1982 and the original file of the Case/Appeal decided vide order dated 20.08.1996 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "SOC") are not available. (b) The DDC directed the CO to reconstruct the file and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, which includes adducing the evidence, adjudicate the dispute of the parties. (c) The DDC set aside the order of SOC dated 20.08.1986 and CO dated 09.06.1982. (d) The DDC directed the CO to implead Gaon Sabha and State. (vii) After the order of DDC dated 24.09.2024, the CO passed the final order in the case on 15.01.2025, which is impugned in the WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025. (viii) Undisputedly, the paper-book was not reconstructed by the CO and based upon the material available, as was available before the DDC, the CO passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2025. (ix) Thus, the order dated 15.01.2025 of CO is contravention/violation of the remand order of the DDC dated 24.09.2024.

11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts including the fact that reconstruction of file is required for deciding the lis between the parties aforesaid also other parties i.e. State, Gaon Sabha and Awas Vikas Parishad, who according to the parties before this Court acquired the land in dispute, this Court is of the view that the interference in the order dated 24.09.2024 is not required and in the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 the interference is required as the same has been passed in violation of order of remand dated

24.09.2024 passed by DDC. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

15.01.2025 is hereby set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back to CO for deciding the same afresh after taking note of the spirit of order dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC and also of this order.

13. The CO shall first reconstruct the paper-book.

14. Thereafter, the CO shall implead the State as also the Gaon Sabha, in view of Section 11(c) of the Act of 1953 and observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Rama Kant Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko and Another (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:22217), and also the Avas Vikas Parishad in the case to be decided.

15. After the above, the CO shall provide proper opportunity to the parties, which means providing opportunity to plead the case and adduce evidence in support thereof.

16. Thereafter, the CO shall decide the matter (lis between the parties) by reasoned and speaking order, most expeditiously.

17. Accordingly, WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025 is party allowed in terms of above. WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025 is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025; Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents in both the petitions; Shri Adi Nigam, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025.

3. In WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, the petitioners namely Tariq Yusu Aziz S/o Late Syed Abdul Aziz and Km. Saba Qamar D/o Late Qamar Mahmood have sought the following main relief(s) :- "(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 alleged to be passed by Opposite Party No. 4 in Case No. 202/2024 (Tariq Yusuf others Sri Syed vs. Sikandar Khan) along with connected Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar vs. Sikandar Khan), as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 alleged to be passed by Opposite Party No. 7 and 10 in Case No. 43/2025 (Tariq Yusuf Aziz vs Sikandar Khan) along with Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar vs. Sikandar Khan) under section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this writ petition (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 to conduct inquiry and take action against Opposite Party No. 8, 9 and 10 with respect to allegations raised in present writ petition with regard to deliberate abuse of power by adopting corrupt practice to legalise the fraudulent proceedings of opposite party no. 9 and deliberately treating forged documents filed by opposite party no. 9 to be genuine.

4. In WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025, the petitioner namely Sikandar Khan S/o Late Shahjahan Khan has sought the following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, during the pendency of the present petition. (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition)."

5. In both the petitions, the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC") in exercise of power under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") has been impeached.

6. From the facts indicated hereinafter, based upon the record, it would be apt to indicate at this stage that description of the cases in the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC, indicated below, appears to be a typographical error. (i) Case No. 202 of 2024, Computerized Case No. 2018531046000075, (Tariq Yusuf Aziz and others Vs. Sikandar Khan). (ii) Case No. 201 of 2024, Computerized Case No. 2021531046000009, (Saba Qamar Vs. Sikandar Khan)

7. Prayer (ii) sought in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, quoted above, is in two parts.

8. First part relates to order dated 15.01.2025 and second part relates to quashing of proceedings of Case No. 43/2025 (Tariq Yusuf Aziz Vs. Sikandar Khan) as also of Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar Vs. Sikandar Khan), under Section 9A(2) of Act of 1953.

9. In so far as, second part of the prayer aforesaid is concerned i.e. prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 43/2025 and Case No. 201/2024, the same cannot be acceded in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacky vs. Tiny, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 508, followed recently in the case of K. Valarmathi & Ors. Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 INSC 606. Accordingly, it is rejected.

10. In order to come to the conclusion as to whether the impugned order(s) dated 24.09.2024 and 15.01.2025 require interference by this Court, this Court took note of the following relevant facts :- (i) An order was passed on 19.01.1989 by the DDC in Revision No. 826/939/1004/88-89 (Sikandar Khan Vs. Vilkis Begaum and Others), under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. (ii) On coming to know about the order dated 19.01.1989, the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025 preferred an application dated 20.06.2018 for recall of order dated 19.01.1989 and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.02.2021. (iii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2021, Sikandar Khan preferred Writ Petition No. 7502 (Consolidation) of 2021 (Sikandar Khan Vs. D.D.C. Lucknow & Ors.) before this Court. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2021, affirmed the order dated

04.02.2021. (iv) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that vide order dated

04.02.2021, the DDC after recalling of final order dated 19.01.1989, fixed the revision for 18.02.2021 for the purposes of hearing of parties. (v) After dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 18.03.2021, whereby the order dated 04.02.2021 was affirmed, the DDC proceeded in the matter and after considering various facts of the case passed the final order dated 24.09.2024. Relevant portion of the same, which is impugned, is extracted herein-under :- -20.08.1986 -04.02.2021 " उपररक ववववचनन सव एवव पतनवलल मम सवलग सनकयय सव यह सपष हह वक पपवर पलठनसलन दनरन वनगरननल सव0-826/939/1004/88-89 वनद ससकनदर खनव बननम ववलवकस बवगम आवद मम वनररय वदननवक-04.02.2021 दनरन पपवर पनररत आदवश वदननवक-19.01.1989 वनरसत हर चचकन हह। इस सतर पर पकय दनरन वनगरननल मम रखव गयव मननय तथय वनवररत हरनव थव। सजसमम बनदरबसत असधकनरल चकबनदल कव आदवश वदननवक-20.08.1986 मम एवव चकबनदल असधकनरल कव आदवश वदननवक-09.06.1982 कन परलकर हरनन थन। दरनय -19.01.1989 कर फजर एवव आदवशय कक पतनवलल उपलबध नहह हह और आदवश वदननवक कप टरवचत इस नयनयनलय दनरन पपवर मम पनररत आदवश वदननवक मम मननन जन चचकन हह। ऐसव मम आदवश वदननवक कक मपल पतनवलल जब तक नहह हरगल तब तक ववसधक परलकर वकयन जननन समभव नहह हह। ऐसव मम वनगरननल 0-2018531046000075 सव 0- 202/2024 तनररक यचसचफ अजलज आवद 0- वनगरननल सव एवव ससकनदर खनव बननम 2021531046000009 सवयचक रप सव वनसतनररत कक जनतल हह। आदवश बनदरबसत - असधकनरल चकबनदल वदननवक 09.06.1982 वनरसत वकयन जनतन हह। वनद चकबनदल असधकनरल सररजनलनगर - वनदरश कव सनथ पतयनववतरत वकयन जनतन हह वक सवरपथम मपल नयनयनलय पर इस वदशन पतनवलल गठन करकव पकय कन सचनवनयल एवव सनकय कन अवसर दवतव हहए तथन समसत तथयय कर दवखतव हहए वनद मनह मम वनवररत करम। वनगरननल नयनयनलय मम पपवर पनररत आदवश एवव उसकव पभनव अवर नयनयनलय पर बनधयकनरल पभनव नहह रखमगव। चकबनदल असधकनरल गनवव सभन एवव सरकनर कर भल आवशयक पककनर बननकर कनयरवनहल करम। पक वदननवक-10.10.2024 कर यहल आदवश दरनय वनगरनवनयय पर पभनवल हरगन। एवव चकबनदल असधकनरल कन 0-309/2021 -20.08.1986

09.06.1982 कन वनद सव वनद सव वदननवक 03 एवव कव चकबनदल असधकनरल सररजनलनगर कव नयनयनलय मम उपससथत हय। पतनवलल बनद आवशयक कनयरवनहल दनसखल दफतर हर।" (vi) A bare perusal of relevant portion of the impugned order dated

24.09.2024, quoted above, indicates as under. (a) The order of remand has been passed after taking note of the fact that the original file of the case decided by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Lucknow (in short "CO") vide order dated 09.06.1982 and the original file of the Case/Appeal decided vide order dated 20.08.1996 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "SOC") are not available. (b) The DDC directed the CO to reconstruct the file and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, which includes adducing the evidence, adjudicate the dispute of the parties. (c) The DDC set aside the order of SOC dated 20.08.1986 and CO dated 09.06.1982. (d) The DDC directed the CO to implead Gaon Sabha and State. (vii) After the order of DDC dated 24.09.2024, the CO passed the final order in the case on 15.01.2025, which is impugned in the WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025. (viii) Undisputedly, the paper-book was not reconstructed by the CO and based upon the material available, as was available before the DDC, the CO passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2025. (ix) Thus, the order dated 15.01.2025 of CO is contravention/violation of the remand order of the DDC dated 24.09.2024.

11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts including the fact that reconstruction of file is required for deciding the lis between the parties aforesaid also other parties i.e. State, Gaon Sabha and Awas Vikas Parishad, who according to the parties before this Court acquired the land in dispute, this Court is of the view that the interference in the order dated 24.09.2024 is not required and in the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 the interference is required as the same has been passed in violation of order of remand dated

24.09.2024 passed by DDC. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

15.01.2025 is hereby set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back to CO for deciding the same afresh after taking note of the spirit of order dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC and also of this order.

13. The CO shall first reconstruct the paper-book.

14. Thereafter, the CO shall implead the State as also the Gaon Sabha, in view of Section 11(c) of the Act of 1953 and observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Rama Kant Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko and Another (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:22217), and also the Avas Vikas Parishad in the case to be decided.

15. After the above, the CO shall provide proper opportunity to the parties, which means providing opportunity to plead the case and adduce evidence in support thereof.

16. Thereafter, the CO shall decide the matter (lis between the parties) by reasoned and speaking order, most expeditiously.

17. Accordingly, WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025 is party allowed in terms of above. WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025 is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench