✦ High Court of India · 05 Aug 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 05 Aug 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
05 Aug 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,185 words

1. Heard Sri Bajrangi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to Khasra No. 258/4, area 0.72 Acres, situated in Village Thakurnagar, Pargana Aurangabad, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur, which was recorded in the names of Ganga and Makhan, sons of Mihi Lal, in the basic year. It is submitted that during consolidation operations, Mool Chand, the father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and husband of respondent no. 6, filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer (respondent no. 3), claiming that the disputed land was his ancestral property and the petitioners had already obtained their share therein. The petitioners filed objections asserting that the land had been obtained from the Zamindar by Makhan and Khagga, sons of Mihi Lal (also known as Chetan), and that Ganga's name had been recorded erroneously in place of Khagga by the Lekhpal. 4. After hearing all parties, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Mool Chand by order dated 10.04.2006, which was affirmed in appeal under Section 11(1) by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 13.05.2008. A revision was then filed by the respondents, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.08.2018, set aside both the earlier orders and remanded the matter with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to frame factual issues and decide the matter regarding succession of Ganga S/o Mihi Lal on the basis of documentary and oral evidence. 5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the remand proceedings, the respondents filed fresh/additional objections under Section 9-A(2) on 05.07.2019, which, according to the petitioners, introduced a new and inconsistent claim, stating that Ganga and Makhan were the only sons of Mihi Lal, contrary to the earlier objection of Mool Chand, wherein he had acknowledged three sons—Makhan, Khagga, and Ganga. The petitioners objected to the maintainability of this additional objection, submitting that the Consolidation of Holdings Act does not permit filing of a second or additional objection under Section 9-A(2). 6. Despite the objection, the Consolidation Officer allowed the additional objection to be taken on record by order dated 25.11.2020, imposing a cost of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed on 25.09.2021, holding that the new objection altered the nature of the dispute and was not legally sustainable in view of the prior proceedings. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while deciding the revision filed by the respondents, allowed the same and upheld the order dated 25.11.2020 by means of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 7. Entire controversy in the present case has raised by the petitioners is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to hear fresh objections filed by the respondents under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. For ready reference Section 9A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted herein below :- "9-A. Disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings.- (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall - (i) where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned, (ii) where no objections are filed after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary. settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of such conciliation : [Provided that where the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, is satisfied that a case of succession is undisputed, he shall dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry.] (2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvements, for calculating compensation therefor, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub- section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be Court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.]"

8. Perusal of Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act indicates that all the objections which are not disposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, can be forwarded to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same. Accordingly, we find that the Consolidation Officer can also hear and disposed of the objections which can be filed before him, in case any proceedings are pending before him.

9. In the present case the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh after framing issues, by means of order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it is during the remand proceedings that fresh objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act have been filed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners, wherein he had raised serious objections with regard to admission of fresh objection under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

10. In the light of above, this Court finds that there was no infirmity in obtaining fresh objections directly by the Consolidation Officer in exercise of power under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

11. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Consolidation Officer may be directed to provide adequate opportunity to rebut the fresh objections filed by the respondents.

12. Needless to say that once fresh objections are filed before the Consolidation Officer, he is under duty to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, before returning any finding with regard to the same. Accordingly, before the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners shall be granted full opportunity to file their objections against the fresh objections filed under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the respondents and the Consolidation Officer shall decide all the issues by means of reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

13. Subject to aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2025/A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Bajrangi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to Khasra No. 258/4, area 0.72 Acres, situated in Village Thakurnagar, Pargana Aurangabad, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur, which was recorded in the names of Ganga and Makhan, sons of Mihi Lal, in the basic year. It is submitted that during consolidation operations, Mool Chand, the father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and husband of respondent no. 6, filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer (respondent no. 3), claiming that the disputed land was his ancestral property and the petitioners had already obtained their share therein. The petitioners filed objections asserting that the land had been obtained from the Zamindar by Makhan and Khagga, sons of Mihi Lal (also known as Chetan), and that Ganga's name had been recorded erroneously in place of Khagga by the Lekhpal. 4. After hearing all parties, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Mool Chand by order dated 10.04.2006, which was affirmed in appeal under Section 11(1) by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 13.05.2008. A revision was then filed by the respondents, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.08.2018, set aside both the earlier orders and remanded the matter with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to frame factual issues and decide the matter regarding succession of Ganga S/o Mihi Lal on the basis of documentary and oral evidence. 5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the remand proceedings, the respondents filed fresh/additional objections under Section 9-A(2) on 05.07.2019, which, according to the petitioners, introduced a new and inconsistent claim, stating that Ganga and Makhan were the only sons of Mihi Lal, contrary to the earlier objection of Mool Chand, wherein he had acknowledged three sons—Makhan, Khagga, and Ganga. The petitioners objected to the maintainability of this additional objection, submitting that the Consolidation of Holdings Act does not permit filing of a second or additional objection under Section 9-A(2). 6. Despite the objection, the Consolidation Officer allowed the additional objection to be taken on record by order dated 25.11.2020, imposing a cost of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed on 25.09.2021, holding that the new objection altered the nature of the dispute and was not legally sustainable in view of the prior proceedings. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while deciding the revision filed by the respondents, allowed the same and upheld the order dated 25.11.2020 by means of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 7. Entire controversy in the present case has raised by the petitioners is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to hear fresh objections filed by the respondents under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. For ready reference Section 9A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted herein below :- "9-A. Disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings.- (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall - (i) where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned, (ii) where no objections are filed after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary. settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of such conciliation : [Provided that where the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, is satisfied that a case of succession is undisputed, he shall dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry.] (2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvements, for calculating compensation therefor, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub- section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be Court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.]"

8. Perusal of Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act indicates that all the objections which are not disposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, can be forwarded to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same. Accordingly, we find that the Consolidation Officer can also hear and disposed of the objections which can be filed before him, in case any proceedings are pending before him.

9. In the present case the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh after framing issues, by means of order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it is during the remand proceedings that fresh objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act have been filed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners, wherein he had raised serious objections with regard to admission of fresh objection under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

10. In the light of above, this Court finds that there was no infirmity in obtaining fresh objections directly by the Consolidation Officer in exercise of power under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

11. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Consolidation Officer may be directed to provide adequate opportunity to rebut the fresh objections filed by the respondents.

12. Needless to say that once fresh objections are filed before the Consolidation Officer, he is under duty to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, before returning any finding with regard to the same. Accordingly, before the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners shall be granted full opportunity to file their objections against the fresh objections filed under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the respondents and the Consolidation Officer shall decide all the issues by means of reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

13. Subject to aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2025/A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments