Allahabad High Court
Amresh vs J.D.C. And Others on 9 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No:- 2025:AHC:108114
Court No. 37
Reserved on: 13.5.2025
Delivered on: 9.7.2025
WRIT - B No. - 7617 of 1978
Petitioner :- Amresh
Respondent :- J.D.C. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner:- Mr. Ramesh Chandra & Mr. Shiv Dayal Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Shesh Nath Bhatt, & Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra and Mr. Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Shesh Nath Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no. 3/1 and 4/1 to 4/3, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.14/Gaon Sabha and learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 639, area 7 biswa 9 dhoor, situated in village- Chauri Khurd, Tappa- Gosiyari Bazar, Tehsil Bansi, Pergana Maghar West, District Basti, now District Siddharthnagar was recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation in the name of petitioner- Amresh as bhumidhar. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, a time barred title objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Case No.6118, the delay in filing the title objection was condoned, issues were framed and parties have adduced evidence in support of their case. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.6.1970 expunged the name of petitioner-Amresh from the plot in dispute and the same was ordered to be recorded as abadi class-6 as well as the objection of respondents/Chhatonki and others was rejected with liberty to the parties to get the ownership of houses and trees declared from the competent court of law. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 25.6.1970, two appeals under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Appeal No.1123 was filed on behalf of the petitioner/Amresh and Appeal No.1707Aa was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5/Chhatonki and Others. Both the aforementioned appeals were clubbed and heard together. Appeal No. 1707Aa was dismissed for non-prosecution but Appeal No.1123 was heard on merit. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 20.9.1975 dismissed both the appeals and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer. Petitioner/Amresh filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but no revision was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5/Chhatanki and Others. The revision filed by petitioner/Amresh was registered as Revision No.8. The aforementioned revision was heard by Joint Director of Consolidation and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.5.1978. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner-Amresh for following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dated 19.5.1975, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 29.9.1975 and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.6.1970 so far as they are against the petitioner."
3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 4.9.1978, issued notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of the order dated 4.9.1978.
4. In pursuance of the order dated 4.9.1978, parties have exchanged their pleadings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner/Amresh was recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation over the plot in dispute, as such, time barred title objection filed by private respondent nos. 1 to 5 cannot be entertained and allowed by consolidation authorities. He further submitted that Consolidation Officer has rejected the claim of private respondent nos. 1 to 5/Chhatanki & Others but expunged the basic year entry which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that in view of the fact that plot in dispute became abadi, as such, Consolidation Officer cannot order to expunge the petitioner's entry in respect to the plot in question. He submitted that title of the plot in question, cannot be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that title appeal filed by private respondent nos. 1 to 5/Chhatanki and Others was dismissed for non-prosecution and revision was not filed by private respondents, as such, private respondent nos. 1 to 5, cannot be heard by this Court. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court in support of his argument:-
(i) 1979 RD 78, Kamla Shankar and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
(ii) 1987 RD 85, Chakat and Others vs. Babu Ram and Others
6. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that in view of the entry of 1356 fasli, 1359 fasli of the plot no.639 which are annexed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 31.3.2014, the private respondents are entitled to be recorded over the plot in dispute after expunging the name of petitioner. He further submitted that title objection filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5/Chhatanki and Others was not decided in proper manner, as such, the impugned orders should be properly modified. He further submitted that in view of the entry of 1356 & 1359 fasli of the plot in dispute, the claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed.
7. Learned standing counsel and learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that in view of the entry of the plot in dispute in C.H. Form 2A, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities, as such, writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that the plot in dispute was recorded in the basic year of consolidation operation in the name of petitioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that time barred title objection filed by respondent nos. 1 to 5/Chhatanki and Others was decided by Consolidation officer, expunging the basic year entry and directing to record the plot in question as abadi. There is also no dispute about the fact that title appeal filed by petitioner as well as respondent nos. 1 to 5 were dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner only was dismissed by Joint Director of Consolidation.
10. So far as jurisdiction of consolidation Court in respect to abadi land is concerned, following judgements of this Court will be relevant for perusal which are as under:-
"(i) 2004 (97) RD 705 Jai Narain and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
(iii) 2004 (96) RD 303 Ram Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
(iii) 2003 (95) RD 611 Prabhu Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
(iv) 1987 RD 85 Chakat and Others Vs. Babu Ram and Another
(v)1979 RD 78 Kamla Shanker and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
(vi) 1974 RD 5 (DB) Triloki Nath Vs. Ram Gopal and Others"
11. This Court in the case of Kamla Shankar (Supra) has held that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title in respect to the abadi land. The perusal of the relevant paragraph of the judgement rendered in Kamla Shanker (Supra) will be necessary which is as under:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is well founded. In Triloki Nath v. Ram Gopal (1) a Division Bench of this Court held that if the consolidation authorities find that a particular holding is being used for purposes unconnected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry, etc., as envisaged by the definition of land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, they have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title in regard to such land.
The argument that the consolidation authorities have at least the jurisdiction to correct the revenue records was also repelled and it was held that this could appropriately be done only after the title to the land has been decided by the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the matter. In view of what has been held in Triloki Nath's case I am of opinion that the only jurisdiction which the consolidation authorities had was to make an entry in the relevant column of C.H. Form No. 2-A that the land was Abadi on the spot. They did not have any jurisdiction to direct the names of the petitioners to be expunged from the papers showing them to be Bhumidhars.
It was urged by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that it the entry as Bhumidars in favour of the petitioners is allowed to continue it may be that in subsequent proceedings Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act may bar the claim of respondent No.4. I am, however, unable to agree with this submission. Apparently when the consolidation authorities allow the entry to continue on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that any decision has been reached by the consolidation authorities in regard to the title. No question of the claim of any party being barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in subsequent proceedings, therefore, arises. I am informed that a civil suit is already pending for the demolition of the constructions standing on the plot in dispute. The suit has been filed by the petitioners against respondent No. 4. The entries in village papers can, therefore be corrected after the rights of the parties have finally been adjudicated upon by the civil Court.
ORDER
6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the consolidation authorities directing the names of the petitioners to be expunged are quashed. The petitioners will continue to be recorded as Bhumidhars as in the basic year till the rights of the parties have been determined by a competent Court. The consolidation authorities will, however, make an entry in the appropriate column to the effect that the plot in dispute is Abadi on the spot. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs."
12. The ratio of law laid down by this court as quoted above, fully demonstrates that the consolidation courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of abadi plot or expunge the entry of the plot in dispute.
13. In the instant matter, the plot in question was entered as abadi in C.H. Form 2A, as such, the order passed by Consolidation Officer, expunging the entry of the plot in question cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
14. It is also material to mention that the Consolidation Officer, at the one hand, dismissed the title objection filed by respondent nos. 1 to 5 and on the other hand, expunged the petitioner's basic year entry of the plot in question which is illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Joint Director of Consolidation have failed to exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with law, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 19.5.1978 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, appellate order dated 29.9.1975 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No.1123 and part of the order dated 25.6.1970 passed by Consolidation Officer by which name of petitioner/Amresh was expunged from the plot in dispute, are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
16. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
17. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.7.2025
C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
