Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Singh And Others vs Settlement Officer Of Consolidation, ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18562
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 848 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh And Others
Respondent :- Settlement Officer Of Consolidation, Unnao And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Abhineet Jaiswal,Shreya Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Kumar Pathak,Ganesh Kumar Gupta,Madhukar Ojha
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ganesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party.
The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Appellate Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Unnao i.e Respondent No. 1, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Unnao i.e Respondent No. 2, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition."
In fact, the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 has been passed by Consolidation Officer, Final Record/Rule 109-A, District- Unnao (in short CO") in exercise of power under Rule 109-A(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954") made under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") in Case No. 0123/2024 (Putti Lal vs. Jagdish Singh). The operative portion of the same on reproduction reads as under. :-
"??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ???? 109? ?? ????? ?????? 07.03.24 ?????? ???? 109 ?? ????? ?????? 20.03.2024 ?? ???? ?? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? 241/??0/2096 ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? 9? (2) ?????? ?????? 17.11.2011 ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ??????????? 45 ?? ??????0 65 ????????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??0 301??/0.282 ??? ????? ???? ? ????????????? 45 ?? ???? ?? 34 ????????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? 425/0.226 ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ???????? 45 ?? ???? ?? 178 ?????????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??0 236??/0.226??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????????? ???? 109? ?? ????? ?????? 24.05.2024 ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???
???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ???"
Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.05.2024, an Appeal/Case No. 0529/2024 (Jagdish vs. Putti Lal and others) under Rule 109-A(3) of the Rules of 1954 was preferred, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "SOC") being not maintainable vide impugned order dated 31.07.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 31.07.2024 reads as under:-
"????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????-109 ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??????-22.07.99 ? 17.11.2011 ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????-21.05.2024 ?? ?????? ???? 109 ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??, ????? ???????????? ?? ????? ??????-24.05.2024 ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????-24.05.2024 ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????-47/2024 ????-109? (1) ????? ???? ?????0-24.05.2024 ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????-27.05.2024 ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? 1954 ?? ????-109? (1) ?? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ????-52?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? 100 ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????-109? (2) ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ????-109? (1) ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??, ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????-109? (1) ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????-109? (1) ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??:-
????
??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????-47/2024 ????-109? (1) ??????-24.05.2024 ?? ??????? ????? ????, ?????? ? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ????? ????? ???"
Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including that chaks have been allotted to the petitioners, as is evident from Form(s)-45 prepared during consolidation proceedings with regard to petitioner No. 1/Jagdish Singh, which is annexed at page No. 83, petitioner No. 2/Birendra Singh, which is annexed at page No. 90, and petitioner No. 3/Surya Kumar Singh, which is annexed at page No. 98, respectively, of the instant petition and also various pronouncements related to the subject matter of the present petiton including the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sampurna Nand Tiwari and others vs. Additional District Magistrate (F and R) and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine All 1972, on being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioners says that the present petition may kindly be disposed of without interfering in the impugned orders dated 24.05.2024 and 31.07.2024 with a direction to SOC concerned to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Consolidation Officer concerned dated 17.01.2011 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal after taking note of settled proposition of law in this regard including the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 03.02.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 6574 (Consolidation) of 2016 (Ram Prakash vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Others) and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noharlal Verma vs. Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, as per which, the application seeking condonation of delay has to be decided first, within the time as specified by this Court.
The aforesaid has not been opposed.
Taking note of the aforesaid, without interfering the impugned orders dated24.05.2024 and 31.07.2024, the instant petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to SOC concerned to conclude the proceedings pending before him within a maximum period of six months from the next date fixed in the same, as in the instant case, the initial order was passed wayback in the year 2011 by the Consolidation Officer concerned.
Order Date :- 3.4.2025
Arun/-
