Allahabad High Court
Ram Ajor And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 21 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91199
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1085 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Ajor And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that village in question came under consolidation operation by way of notification dated 3.5.2014 issued under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). An objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.3 against the basic year entry. Petitioners appeared before Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and filed their reply. Consolidation Officer framed issues in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 8.1.2024 decided the title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and directed to record the name of the petitioners over 1/2 share and respondent no.3 along with the others were ordered to be recorded over 1/2 share of the plot of Khata no.109 situated in Village- Orahiya Manjhariya, the objection of the petitioners were accordingly, rejected, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief;
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.0030 of 2021 (Rajendra Vs. Ram Ajor and Others) (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)".
The facts regarding suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") is that suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was stated to be decreed on 19.8.1970 / 3.1.1971 and the restoration proceeding initiated against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1970/ 3.1.1971 was abated vide order dated 25.4.2018. In revision filed by respondent no.3, the order dated 25.4.2018 was set aside and restoration proceeding was directed to be decided afresh by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.6.2023. Petitioners challenged the order dated 27.6.2023 before this Court through Writ-B No.2688 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.10.2023 to decide the restoration proceeding according to the direction made in the body of the judgement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act partition decree was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer determining the share of the parties. He further submitted that the restoration proceeding in respect to the aforementioned suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. He further submitted that in objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, Consolidation Officer has decided the objection in arbitrary manner giving 1/2 share to the contesting respondent without considering the decree passed by revenue Court in suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He also submitted that the order passed by Consolidation Officer be set aside and matter be sent back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that the writ petition against the order of Consolidation Officer is not maintainable. He further submitted that the title objection filed against the basic year entry during consolidation operation has been rightly decided by the Consolidation Officer under the impugned order after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law, as such, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that under the impugned order of Consolidation Officer both parties have been given 1/2 share according to the pedigree, as such, no interference is required even on merit.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the title objection under Section 9- A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 8.1.2024, which is order impugned in the instant petition.
6. Since, the order impugned passed by the Consolidation Officer is appealable before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as such, the writ petition against the order of Consolidation Officer cannot entertained.
7. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 21.5.2024
Rameez
