Brijbhushan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner Of Consolidation, U.P. Lko. And Others

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. Instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is tenure holder with regard to number of plots situated at Village - Naubasta, Pargana - Mahadeva, Tehsil - Tarabganj, District - Gonda, where consolidation operations are under way.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on commencement of consolidation operations, survey proceedings took place and Form 2A has been prepared. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case is that work of survey and preparation of Form 2A has not been done properly by the consolidation authorities and it is stated that details of trees, borings, valuation of land etc. have not been correctly done, and accordingly, number of complaints were made in this regard to the consolidation authorities, but the grievances were not redressed and therefore present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the State respondent to re-prepare Form 2A as prescribed under Consolidation of Holdings Act and also consider their representations.

4. The allegations levelled by the petitioner were detailed in the letter of the Consolidation Commissioner (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). 2 WRIB No. 459 of 2025 Considering the allegations levelled by the petitioner the respondents themselves decided to constitute a Committee to look into the grievances the villagers. The Committee consisted of Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda while Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Consolidation Officer, Balrampur were members of the said Committee.

5. It is when present writ petition was filed, this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce a copy of the report of the Committee. Today, when the matter has been taken up, Sri Mahesh Prakash, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda has appeared before this Court with the relevant records including the report of the Committee which was submitted on 02.07.2025.

6. From the perusal of report dated 02.07.2025, it seems that the Committee have taken into consideration all the allegations levelled by the villagers in their complaints and rectified the same. This fact also finds mention in the letter of Chief Revenue Officer in its letter dated 19.11.2025, where he has communicated these facts to one of the complainant namely Suresh Kumar. In the said letter it has been stated that complaints were made on 25 points all of which have been duly considered and exercise has been taken on judicial side to rectify the defects which were pointed out and in case any further grievance remains, the parties have adequate remedy under the statutory scheme of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that undisputedly authorities are under mandate to proceed strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme of Consolidation of Holdings Act, but even if there are small defects and certain land measurements have gone unnoticed, same can be brought on record by moving appropriate application at various stages of consolidation. It is submitted that pursuant to survey and preparation of Form 2A, CH Form 5 is distributed to all the villagers and objections, if any, can be raised by them under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is submitted that objections under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act are treated as regular judicial proceedings and after inviting objections and hearing all the parties 3 WRIB No. 459 of 2025 concerned to the dispute, the objections are decided.

8. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that if a person has any grievance against the order passed by the consolidation authorities under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, they can file appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and can also file revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Full Scheme has been laid down under the Consolidation of Holdings Act for redressal of grievance of the villagers and similar grievances have been brought before this Court in the present writ petition.

9. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, a Committee was constituted and grievances raised by the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been redressed, but in case any grievance still remains unresolved, the petitioner has adequate remedy under the statutory scheme as laid down under the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. This Court has perused the report of Committee and nature of grievance raised by the petitioner. This Court finds that the Committee has considered objections and grievances which have been raised by the petitioner and other villagers. It has been stated that taking recourse of the judicial proceedings the State respondents have rectified the defects, which ever they have found to be justified.

12. In case certain objections of the petitioner still remains outstanding, this Court finds that there is adequate statutory provisions for redressal of the same in accordance with law.

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that no further directions are required to be passed in the present matter. No other remedy can be granted to the petitioner apart from what has been provided for in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

14. Apart from the above, if any particular authority has deliberately violated the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, 4 WRIB No. 459 of 2025 complaints in this regard can be dealt by the State respondents on the administrative side and adequate punishment orders can be passed in such matters.

15. In the light of above, no further directions are required to be passed in the present matter. Subject to aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. November 20, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. Instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is tenure holder with regard to number of plots situated at Village - Naubasta, Pargana - Mahadeva, Tehsil - Tarabganj, District - Gonda, where consolidation operations are under way.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on commencement of consolidation operations, survey proceedings took place and Form 2A has been prepared. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case is that work of survey and preparation of Form 2A has not been done properly by the consolidation authorities and it is stated that details of trees, borings, valuation of land etc. have not been correctly done, and accordingly, number of complaints were made in this regard to the consolidation authorities, but the grievances were not redressed and therefore present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the State respondent to re-prepare Form 2A as prescribed under Consolidation of Holdings Act and also consider their representations.

4. The allegations levelled by the petitioner were detailed in the letter of the Consolidation Commissioner (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). 2 WRIB No. 459 of 2025 Considering the allegations levelled by the petitioner the respondents themselves decided to constitute a Committee to look into the grievances the villagers. The Committee consisted of Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda while Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Consolidation Officer, Balrampur were members of the said Committee.

5. It is when present writ petition was filed, this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce a copy of the report of the Committee. Today, when the matter has been taken up, Sri Mahesh Prakash, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda has appeared before this Court with the relevant records including the report of the Committee which was submitted on 02.07.2025.

6. From the perusal of report dated 02.07.2025, it seems that the Committee have taken into consideration all the allegations levelled by the villagers in their complaints and rectified the same. This fact also finds mention in the letter of Chief Revenue Officer in its letter dated 19.11.2025, where he has communicated these facts to one of the complainant namely Suresh Kumar. In the said letter it has been stated that complaints were made on 25 points all of which have been duly considered and exercise has been taken on judicial side to rectify the defects which were pointed out and in case any further grievance remains, the parties have adequate remedy under the statutory scheme of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that undisputedly authorities are under mandate to proceed strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme of Consolidation of Holdings Act, but even if there are small defects and certain land measurements have gone unnoticed, same can be brought on record by moving appropriate application at various stages of consolidation. It is submitted that pursuant to survey and preparation of Form 2A, CH Form 5 is distributed to all the villagers and objections, if any, can be raised by them under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is submitted that objections under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act are treated as regular judicial proceedings and after inviting objections and hearing all the parties 3 WRIB No. 459 of 2025 concerned to the dispute, the objections are decided.

8. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that if a person has any grievance against the order passed by the consolidation authorities under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, they can file appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and can also file revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Full Scheme has been laid down under the Consolidation of Holdings Act for redressal of grievance of the villagers and similar grievances have been brought before this Court in the present writ petition.

9. It is further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, a Committee was constituted and grievances raised by the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been redressed, but in case any grievance still remains unresolved, the petitioner has adequate remedy under the statutory scheme as laid down under the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. This Court has perused the report of Committee and nature of grievance raised by the petitioner. This Court finds that the Committee has considered objections and grievances which have been raised by the petitioner and other villagers. It has been stated that taking recourse of the judicial proceedings the State respondents have rectified the defects, which ever they have found to be justified.

12. In case certain objections of the petitioner still remains outstanding, this Court finds that there is adequate statutory provisions for redressal of the same in accordance with law.

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that no further directions are required to be passed in the present matter. No other remedy can be granted to the petitioner apart from what has been provided for in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

14. Apart from the above, if any particular authority has deliberately violated the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, 4 WRIB No. 459 of 2025 complaints in this regard can be dealt by the State respondents on the administrative side and adequate punishment orders can be passed in such matters.

15. In the light of above, no further directions are required to be passed in the present matter. Subject to aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. November 20, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench