Raj Kumar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur Camp, Lakhimpur Kheri and others) where

1. The aforesaid two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same dispute in between the same parties the Deputy Director of and a composite order was passed by Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri dated 24.07.2025.

2. Shri Karuna Shanker Rastogi, learned counsel has put in appearance in Writ- B No.972 of 2025 on behalf of the private respondents no.2 and 3 and his Vakalatnama is taken on record.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby four revisions under section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (in short U.P.C.H.Act, 1953) came to be decided.

4. The instant petitions have a prelude. The dispute relating to the parties is connected with allotment of chak under UP CH Act 1953. The record 2 WRIB No. 972 of 2025 would indicate that earlier the present petitioner had approached this Court by means of writ petition bearing No.781(Cons.) of 2014 (Raj Kumar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur Camp, Lakhimpur Kheri and others) wherein the grievance raised was that Gata No.561 was part of the original holding of the petitioner which also had his irrigation facility that is to say that he had his tube-well which was duly reflected in CH Form 2-A and while carving the chaka Plot No.561 which had the tube-well was not allotted to the petitioner rather it was allotted to the private respondents. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 21.07.2017 and while quashing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remitted the matter for a fresh consideration keeping in mind the observations made by the writ court.

5. In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 the revisions were revived before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who once again after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the revision preferred by the petitioner and his grievance was redressed and he was also granted rights in Plot No.561 including the area where the petitioner had his tube-well.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, once again the petitioner has assailed the order of revision dated 24.07.2025 whereby it is stated that in the revision preferred by the petitioner bearing No.678 of (Raj Kumar Vs. Prakash and others) even though the land in Plot No.561 was given to the petitioner but it is alleged that though he had his largest holding in Plot No.561 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has only granted some part and moreover he has also been accommodated in Plot No.1233 which is an Udan Chak, hence it is urged that the order passed by the revision does not take note of other circumstances and it has merely complied with the order of remand passed by the High Court without proper application of mind.

7. It is further stated that as a consequence the number of chaks allotted to the petitioner has risen 5 which is also against the norms of the consolidation; inasmuch as an endeavour should be made that not more than three chaks should be allotted to any tenure holder and in this case had the petitioner's land be accommodated in his largest holding i.e. Plot No.561 which also was in close proximity to the main road and hence his grievance could have been met but by ignoring this aspect the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error.

8. It is in the same vein that the petitioner has also assailed the said order dated 24.07.2025 whereby Revision No.650 of 2014 filed by the private respondent no.2 has been allowed which is the subject matter of the connected Writ-B No.980 of 2025. It is thus urged that the order passed 3 WRIB No. 972 of 2025 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is bad and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

9. Shri Karuna Shankar Rastogi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that the entire contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct for the reason that first and foremost the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier petition bearing No.781 of 2014 vide its judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 had directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider the grant of the area to the petitioner in context with Plot No.561 noticing the irrigation facility available to him. This aspect was noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same has been granted to the petitioner, hence he is not an aggrieved person, hence the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

10. It is further urged that all other issues which are sought to be raised by the petitioner at this stage in not to be considered since the same were raised and refused by this Court in the earlier petition and it is only the veracity of order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was in compliance of the order of remand passed by the High Court is to be tested.

11. Since the petitioner's grievance was limited to Plot No.561 including grant of irrigation facility which has been done as per the direction of the remand order passed by the High Court, hence fresh grievances cannot be redressed and accordingly the writ petition is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be dismissed.

12. It is also urged that in so far as the second petition connected bearing No.980 of 2025 is concerned that is in respect of the revision which was preferred by the private respondent, namely, Prakash which has been allowed by the revisional authority but that does not impact the rights of the petitioner, hence he has no right to assail the order which has been passed in the revision preferred by Prakash i.e. bearing No.650 of 2014, hence the second writ petition also for the said reason deserves to be dismissed.

13. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

14. It is not disputed that the dispute as raised by the petitioner primarily relates to Plot No.561 wherein the petitioner also had his irrigation facility and in the first round of litigation the said plot was not granted to the petitioner which led the petitioner to assail the orders before this Court in Writ Petition No.781 (Cons.) of 2014. However, before proceedings further, it will be appropriate to notice the order passed by this Court 4 WRIB No. 972 of 2025 dated 21.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 781 (Cons.) of 2014 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- "The contention of the petitioner herein is that Gata No. No. 561 was his part of the original holding whereupon the irrigation facility i.e. Tube-well is situated as demonstrated by him by referring to C.H. Form 2-A annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 with the supplementary affidavit dated 06.12.2014. He prayed for carving out a Chak in respect of his Gata No. 561 where the original holding of petitioner is existing on the said Gata but this has not been done thereby prejudicing the petitioner. He says that the said Gata has been allotted to the Chak of opposite parties 2 and 4 who are represented through Sailesh K Srivastava learned Advocate. On being confronted Sri Srivastava admitted tothe facts to the extent that the Tube-well is shown as existing on Gata No. 561 in C.H. Form 2-A and also that it was part of the original holding of the petitioner. On this ground itself the revisional order is liable to be set aside as the request of the petitioner for being allotted a Chak at his original holding bearing Gata No. 561 as his Tube-well existed on the said Gata has been declined without giving any cogent reason in this regard which could not be done in view of provisions and principles contained in Section 19 of the Act, 1953. In view of this the revisional order is quashed. The revision shall now stand restored before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and other aspects of the matter which are to be also kept in mind. Considering the aforesaid it is further ordered that the deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the revision within four months. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid."

15. On the perusal of the aforesaid quoted order, it would reveal that the issue regarding allotment of Plot bearing No.561 and the tub-well was to be considered and fresh order were to be passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as directed by the Court.

16. Now in furtherance thereof the revisional court had allowed the revision of the petitioner and he has been granted a proportionate share in Plot No.561 including the area which had the irrigation facility (tube- well) of the petitioner. 5 WRIB No. 972 of 2025

17. At this stage, it will also be relevant to notice that the amended table which is part of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that initially the father of the petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar had two plots and after consolidation, he has been granted rights on Plot No.561. It is also not disputed that the petitioner who had raised his grievance relating to the tube-well facility has also been granted to him. Therefore, this issue that has been raised that 561 was his largest holding and he has not been allotted does note appear to be correct as he has been accommodated on Plot No.561.

18. Another issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been granted five chaks and as per the scheme of consolidation preferably a tenure holder should not be granted more than three chaks. As per amended table, the petitioner has been accommodated on his largest holding and it could not be demonstrated as to how it is alleged that the petitioner has been granted five chaks.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 16 of the writ petition, however, if the said paragraph is seen, it would indicate that the petitioner has alleged that earlier he had several other plots. However, that do not co-relate with the amended table; inasmuch as as per the said table earlier the petitioner's father (now the petitioner) had Plot No.554 and 555/2. He also had an area in Plot No.561which earlier was in the name of Mewa Ram. Some part of Plot No.561 was also recorded in the name of Prakash i.e. private respondent no.2 and Baddha Lal. Compare to that, out of the two plots in name of Raj Kumar after consolidation and as per the amended table he has been accommodated on Plot No.561 in three plots with the area as mentioned therein and it is not disputed that this area also contains the irrigation facility. In this view of the matter to state that the petitioner has been granted five chaks does not appear to be correct. Moreover as per section 19 of the UP CH Act 1953, it is a fond endavour of the consolidation authorities to, as for as possible, accommodate the people on their original chaks. This mandate has been complied with and any grievance that he has been granted an Udan chak on Plot No.1233 also cannot be countenanced at this stage.

20. The other grievance regarding the valuation of the land comprising of the chak is an issue which was neither raised in the earlier petition as it could not be demonstrated so. Once the matter was remanded with a specific issue before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the grievance cannot be enlarged beyond that. If the petitioner had raised his grievances regarding the valuation, the same was not addressed in the earlier writ petition, which was decided by means of order dated 21.07.2017 then the petitioner if aggrieved, could have assailed the order further but having acceded to the same now he cannot raise those grievance again. 6 WRIB No. 972 of 2025

21. Considering the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which may require interference of this Court in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

22. As far as the connected writ petition is concerned therein by the same order dated 24.07.2025, the revision preferred by Prakash was allowed. However, while allowing the said petition the rights of the petitioner is not affected. Accordingly the endeavour of the petitioner who assailed the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation relating to the revision of the private respondent no.2 also has no legs to stand.

23. Consequently, both the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost October 9, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. The aforesaid two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the same dispute in between the same parties the Deputy Director of and a composite order was passed by Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri dated 24.07.2025.

2. Shri Karuna Shanker Rastogi, learned counsel has put in appearance in Writ- B No.972 of 2025 on behalf of the private respondents no.2 and 3 and his Vakalatnama is taken on record.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby four revisions under section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (in short U.P.C.H.Act, 1953) came to be decided.

4. The instant petitions have a prelude. The dispute relating to the parties is connected with allotment of chak under UP CH Act 1953. The record 2 WRIB No. 972 of 2025 would indicate that earlier the present petitioner had approached this Court by means of writ petition bearing No.781(Cons.) of 2014 (Raj Kumar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur Camp, Lakhimpur Kheri and others) wherein the grievance raised was that Gata No.561 was part of the original holding of the petitioner which also had his irrigation facility that is to say that he had his tube-well which was duly reflected in CH Form 2-A and while carving the chaka Plot No.561 which had the tube-well was not allotted to the petitioner rather it was allotted to the private respondents. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 21.07.2017 and while quashing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remitted the matter for a fresh consideration keeping in mind the observations made by the writ court.

5. In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 the revisions were revived before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who once again after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the revision preferred by the petitioner and his grievance was redressed and he was also granted rights in Plot No.561 including the area where the petitioner had his tube-well.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, once again the petitioner has assailed the order of revision dated 24.07.2025 whereby it is stated that in the revision preferred by the petitioner bearing No.678 of (Raj Kumar Vs. Prakash and others) even though the land in Plot No.561 was given to the petitioner but it is alleged that though he had his largest holding in Plot No.561 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has only granted some part and moreover he has also been accommodated in Plot No.1233 which is an Udan Chak, hence it is urged that the order passed by the revision does not take note of other circumstances and it has merely complied with the order of remand passed by the High Court without proper application of mind.

7. It is further stated that as a consequence the number of chaks allotted to the petitioner has risen 5 which is also against the norms of the consolidation; inasmuch as an endeavour should be made that not more than three chaks should be allotted to any tenure holder and in this case had the petitioner's land be accommodated in his largest holding i.e. Plot No.561 which also was in close proximity to the main road and hence his grievance could have been met but by ignoring this aspect the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error.

8. It is in the same vein that the petitioner has also assailed the said order dated 24.07.2025 whereby Revision No.650 of 2014 filed by the private respondent no.2 has been allowed which is the subject matter of the connected Writ-B No.980 of 2025. It is thus urged that the order passed 3 WRIB No. 972 of 2025 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is bad and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

9. Shri Karuna Shankar Rastogi, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that the entire contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct for the reason that first and foremost the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier petition bearing No.781 of 2014 vide its judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 had directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider the grant of the area to the petitioner in context with Plot No.561 noticing the irrigation facility available to him. This aspect was noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same has been granted to the petitioner, hence he is not an aggrieved person, hence the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

10. It is further urged that all other issues which are sought to be raised by the petitioner at this stage in not to be considered since the same were raised and refused by this Court in the earlier petition and it is only the veracity of order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was in compliance of the order of remand passed by the High Court is to be tested.

11. Since the petitioner's grievance was limited to Plot No.561 including grant of irrigation facility which has been done as per the direction of the remand order passed by the High Court, hence fresh grievances cannot be redressed and accordingly the writ petition is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be dismissed.

12. It is also urged that in so far as the second petition connected bearing No.980 of 2025 is concerned that is in respect of the revision which was preferred by the private respondent, namely, Prakash which has been allowed by the revisional authority but that does not impact the rights of the petitioner, hence he has no right to assail the order which has been passed in the revision preferred by Prakash i.e. bearing No.650 of 2014, hence the second writ petition also for the said reason deserves to be dismissed.

13. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

14. It is not disputed that the dispute as raised by the petitioner primarily relates to Plot No.561 wherein the petitioner also had his irrigation facility and in the first round of litigation the said plot was not granted to the petitioner which led the petitioner to assail the orders before this Court in Writ Petition No.781 (Cons.) of 2014. However, before proceedings further, it will be appropriate to notice the order passed by this Court 4 WRIB No. 972 of 2025 dated 21.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 781 (Cons.) of 2014 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- "The contention of the petitioner herein is that Gata No. No. 561 was his part of the original holding whereupon the irrigation facility i.e. Tube-well is situated as demonstrated by him by referring to C.H. Form 2-A annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 with the supplementary affidavit dated 06.12.2014. He prayed for carving out a Chak in respect of his Gata No. 561 where the original holding of petitioner is existing on the said Gata but this has not been done thereby prejudicing the petitioner. He says that the said Gata has been allotted to the Chak of opposite parties 2 and 4 who are represented through Sailesh K Srivastava learned Advocate. On being confronted Sri Srivastava admitted tothe facts to the extent that the Tube-well is shown as existing on Gata No. 561 in C.H. Form 2-A and also that it was part of the original holding of the petitioner. On this ground itself the revisional order is liable to be set aside as the request of the petitioner for being allotted a Chak at his original holding bearing Gata No. 561 as his Tube-well existed on the said Gata has been declined without giving any cogent reason in this regard which could not be done in view of provisions and principles contained in Section 19 of the Act, 1953. In view of this the revisional order is quashed. The revision shall now stand restored before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and other aspects of the matter which are to be also kept in mind. Considering the aforesaid it is further ordered that the deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the revision within four months. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid."

15. On the perusal of the aforesaid quoted order, it would reveal that the issue regarding allotment of Plot bearing No.561 and the tub-well was to be considered and fresh order were to be passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as directed by the Court.

16. Now in furtherance thereof the revisional court had allowed the revision of the petitioner and he has been granted a proportionate share in Plot No.561 including the area which had the irrigation facility (tube- well) of the petitioner. 5 WRIB No. 972 of 2025

17. At this stage, it will also be relevant to notice that the amended table which is part of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that initially the father of the petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar had two plots and after consolidation, he has been granted rights on Plot No.561. It is also not disputed that the petitioner who had raised his grievance relating to the tube-well facility has also been granted to him. Therefore, this issue that has been raised that 561 was his largest holding and he has not been allotted does note appear to be correct as he has been accommodated on Plot No.561.

18. Another issue that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been granted five chaks and as per the scheme of consolidation preferably a tenure holder should not be granted more than three chaks. As per amended table, the petitioner has been accommodated on his largest holding and it could not be demonstrated as to how it is alleged that the petitioner has been granted five chaks.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 16 of the writ petition, however, if the said paragraph is seen, it would indicate that the petitioner has alleged that earlier he had several other plots. However, that do not co-relate with the amended table; inasmuch as as per the said table earlier the petitioner's father (now the petitioner) had Plot No.554 and 555/2. He also had an area in Plot No.561which earlier was in the name of Mewa Ram. Some part of Plot No.561 was also recorded in the name of Prakash i.e. private respondent no.2 and Baddha Lal. Compare to that, out of the two plots in name of Raj Kumar after consolidation and as per the amended table he has been accommodated on Plot No.561 in three plots with the area as mentioned therein and it is not disputed that this area also contains the irrigation facility. In this view of the matter to state that the petitioner has been granted five chaks does not appear to be correct. Moreover as per section 19 of the UP CH Act 1953, it is a fond endavour of the consolidation authorities to, as for as possible, accommodate the people on their original chaks. This mandate has been complied with and any grievance that he has been granted an Udan chak on Plot No.1233 also cannot be countenanced at this stage.

20. The other grievance regarding the valuation of the land comprising of the chak is an issue which was neither raised in the earlier petition as it could not be demonstrated so. Once the matter was remanded with a specific issue before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the grievance cannot be enlarged beyond that. If the petitioner had raised his grievances regarding the valuation, the same was not addressed in the earlier writ petition, which was decided by means of order dated 21.07.2017 then the petitioner if aggrieved, could have assailed the order further but having acceded to the same now he cannot raise those grievance again. 6 WRIB No. 972 of 2025

21. Considering the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which may require interference of this Court in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

22. As far as the connected writ petition is concerned therein by the same order dated 24.07.2025, the revision preferred by Prakash was allowed. However, while allowing the said petition the rights of the petitioner is not affected. Accordingly the endeavour of the petitioner who assailed the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation relating to the revision of the private respondent no.2 also has no legs to stand.

23. Consequently, both the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost October 9, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench