Dy.Director Of Consolidation Barabanki And Ors. vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 09.12.2020, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki/ opposite party no.1 in the Revision No. 744, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, 'Sofiya Zubair and another Vs. State' as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to Gata No. 239, which has been renumbered as 270, situated at village Mathura Nagar, Pargana Dariyabad, Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki, where during the consolidation operations till the stage of form 23 the name of the petitioner was co- existing with the respondent as co-tenure holder of the aforesaid property. It is submitted that at the stage of preparation of form 45 the land came to be recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioners only.

4. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 in the aforesaid circumstances had moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holding Act, praying that the revenue 2 WRIB No. 15903 of 2021 record be corrected and the name of the private respondents may also be included as co-tenure holders of Gata No. 230 (new No. 270). The Deputy Director of Consolidation had marked said matter Settlement Officer, Consolidation and directed to take appropriate action, who in turn call for a report from the Consolidation Officer. The report was submitted on 9.12.2020 and on the same day the impugned order was passed holding that it is due to a departmental error that the name of propitiate respondents have been deleted from the revenue records and proceeded to allow the application of the private respondents and directed the names of Zuber Ahmad son of Abu Sayeed, Sahir Ahmad, Tafsir Ahmad (minors) sons of Musheer Ahmad be included in the revenue records against the disputed land.

5. It is against the order dated 9.12.2020 the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order dated 9.12.2020 has submitted that no notices have been issued to the petitioners nor was granted any opportunity to resist the application of the private respondents and accordingly submits impugned order dated

9.12.2020 has been passed in gross violation of natural justice and accordingly illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

7. He further submits that in fact the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents themselves had agreed that the disputed land has been recorded in the name of the petitioners and it is on the strength of the agreement entered into between the parties that the name of the petitioners found mention in the revenue records.

8. Counsels for the private respondents have vehemently opposed the petition and have submitted that there is no agreement as submitted by the petitioners for excluding their names from the revenue records against the disputed land and it is only an effort of the petitioners to illegally have the land recorded in own name that the names of the private respondents were excluded at the time of preparation of from 45. They further submit that as the issue pertains only to departmental / administrative error, the same can be rectified by the Deputy Director 3 WRIB No. 15903 of 2021 of Consolidation without issuing notices and therefore supported the impugned order.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The dispute in the present case confined as to whether there was any error at the stage of preparation of Form 45 the names of private respondents were excluded and the land came to be recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioners. Undoubtedly the Deputy Director of Consolidation is empowered under Section 48 of C.H. Act to call for and examine the records of any proceedings in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holding Act and in the present case I found that there was error at the stage of preparation of form 45. The aspect of including the names of the private respondents was an issue which could have been considered under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holding Act after issuing notices and hearing all the parties, who had right, interest or title in the disputed land including the petitioners. In the instant case petitioners were not issued notices nor afforded any opportunity fo hearing.

10. By not doing so, he has committed manifest error and for this count I find that there is serious infirmity in the order dated 9.12.2020. It is only for this reasons the petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and prejudice has been caused, in as much as, the share in the property has been reduced and therefore any such order adding co-tenure holder should have been passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who also claims co-tenancy along with private respondents.

11. In light of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.12.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned. The petitioners undertake to appear in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is further directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is presented before him. 4 WRIB No. 15903 of 2021

12. Counsel for the petitioners submits that they would file objection to the application preferred by the respondents within four weeks from today. All the parties present here shall cooperate in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and shall not take any unnecessary adjournments. The application which has been treated as revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. December 12, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 09.12.2020, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki/ opposite party no.1 in the Revision No. 744, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, 'Sofiya Zubair and another Vs. State' as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to Gata No. 239, which has been renumbered as 270, situated at village Mathura Nagar, Pargana Dariyabad, Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki, where during the consolidation operations till the stage of form 23 the name of the petitioner was co- existing with the respondent as co-tenure holder of the aforesaid property. It is submitted that at the stage of preparation of form 45 the land came to be recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioners only.

4. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 in the aforesaid circumstances had moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holding Act, praying that the revenue 2 WRIB No. 15903 of 2021 record be corrected and the name of the private respondents may also be included as co-tenure holders of Gata No. 230 (new No. 270). The Deputy Director of Consolidation had marked said matter Settlement Officer, Consolidation and directed to take appropriate action, who in turn call for a report from the Consolidation Officer. The report was submitted on 9.12.2020 and on the same day the impugned order was passed holding that it is due to a departmental error that the name of propitiate respondents have been deleted from the revenue records and proceeded to allow the application of the private respondents and directed the names of Zuber Ahmad son of Abu Sayeed, Sahir Ahmad, Tafsir Ahmad (minors) sons of Musheer Ahmad be included in the revenue records against the disputed land.

5. It is against the order dated 9.12.2020 the present writ petition has been preferred.

6. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order dated 9.12.2020 has submitted that no notices have been issued to the petitioners nor was granted any opportunity to resist the application of the private respondents and accordingly submits impugned order dated

9.12.2020 has been passed in gross violation of natural justice and accordingly illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

7. He further submits that in fact the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents themselves had agreed that the disputed land has been recorded in the name of the petitioners and it is on the strength of the agreement entered into between the parties that the name of the petitioners found mention in the revenue records.

8. Counsels for the private respondents have vehemently opposed the petition and have submitted that there is no agreement as submitted by the petitioners for excluding their names from the revenue records against the disputed land and it is only an effort of the petitioners to illegally have the land recorded in own name that the names of the private respondents were excluded at the time of preparation of from 45. They further submit that as the issue pertains only to departmental / administrative error, the same can be rectified by the Deputy Director 3 WRIB No. 15903 of 2021 of Consolidation without issuing notices and therefore supported the impugned order.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The dispute in the present case confined as to whether there was any error at the stage of preparation of Form 45 the names of private respondents were excluded and the land came to be recorded exclusively in the name of the petitioners. Undoubtedly the Deputy Director of Consolidation is empowered under Section 48 of C.H. Act to call for and examine the records of any proceedings in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holding Act and in the present case I found that there was error at the stage of preparation of form 45. The aspect of including the names of the private respondents was an issue which could have been considered under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holding Act after issuing notices and hearing all the parties, who had right, interest or title in the disputed land including the petitioners. In the instant case petitioners were not issued notices nor afforded any opportunity fo hearing.

10. By not doing so, he has committed manifest error and for this count I find that there is serious infirmity in the order dated 9.12.2020. It is only for this reasons the petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and prejudice has been caused, in as much as, the share in the property has been reduced and therefore any such order adding co-tenure holder should have been passed after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who also claims co-tenancy along with private respondents.

11. In light of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.12.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned. The petitioners undertake to appear in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is further directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is presented before him. 4 WRIB No. 15903 of 2021

12. Counsel for the petitioners submits that they would file objection to the application preferred by the respondents within four weeks from today. All the parties present here shall cooperate in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and shall not take any unnecessary adjournments. The application which has been treated as revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. December 12, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench