Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Singh vs D.D.C. on 10 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109598
Reserved on:- 14.05.2025
Delivered on 10.07.2025
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4766 of 1984
Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh
Respondent :- D.D.C.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Pathak,Randhir Singh,Shamim Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- N.K. Rastogi,Sanjai Srivastava,Yamuna Pandey
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Vinod Kumar Upadhyay holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4; and Mr. Ajai Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of khata no.54 situated in Village- Ahamadnagar alias Mohammadi, Tehsil-Suar, District - Rampur as mentioned in the order of the consolidation authorities. The names of Harmel Singh, Jageer Singh, sons of Santok Singh (respondent no. 7 & 8); Ajeet Singh, Kartar Singh, sons of Ajaib Singh (petitioners nos.2 and 3); Ajeet Singh, son of Sadho Singh (petitioner no.1), Bheem Singh, son of Ramnath Singh (respondent no.9) Bhagwandas, son of Jawaharlal (respondent no.5) were recorded over the aforementioned plots in the basic year of the consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry of the aforementioned plots, an 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 by Amar Singh and Jiwan Singh, sons of Saran Singh, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 26.06.1968 alleged to be executed in their favour in respect to 12 plots area 14-5-0 out of 19 plots area 26-19-0. Respondent no. 4/Surjeet Singh, son of Gunda Singh, also filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 6.3.1965, alleged to be executed in his favour in respect to 12/44 share of the total 19 plots area 26-19-0. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.12.1981, dismissed the objection filed by respondent no. 4/Surjeet Singh and allowed the claim of Amar Singh and Jiwan Singh for recording of their names on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.6.1968. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.12.1981, three appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Appeal No. 128 was filed by Surjeet Singh son of Indra Singh and Appeals No. 126 and 127 were filed by the respondent no.4. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 19.2.1982, allowed Appeals No. 126 and 127 filed by respondent no.4 and dismissed the appeal no.128 filed by Surjeet Son of Indra Singh modifying the order of the Consolidation Officer to the extent that name of respondent no.4/Surjeet Singh son of Gunda Singh shall be recorded as co-tenure holder to the extent of 12/44 share in Khata No.54 and remaining 32/44 share shall be recorded according to the order of the Consolidation Officer. Against the appellate order dated 19.2.1982, four revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which were numbered as Revision Nos. 286, 287, 261, and 262 filed by Ajeet Singh/ Amar Singh. The aforementioned revisions were clubbed and heard together by the Assistant Director of Consolidation. All the abovementioned revisions were dismissed vide order dated 19.2.1984. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for following relief:-
"A: a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders (Annexures 2 and 3) passed by opposite parties Nos.1 and 2.
B. a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the possession of petitioners over the plots in dispute.
C. Any other suitable writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
D. Costs of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioners."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 28.3.1984 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioners.
4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.3.1984, parties have exchanged their pleading.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by Settlement Officer of Consolidation before passing the impugned appellate order as such revisions were filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation by petitioners but revisions have been dismissed on misconceived grounds. He submitted that sale deed set up by private respondents cannot be relied upon in view of the sale deed set up by the petitioners. He submitted that copy of the original sale deed executed in favour of petitioners was handed over to the counsel for the petitioners in revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act but the same was not filed in revision as such petitioners should not suffer for the fault of the counsel. He submitted that true copy of sale deed executed in favour of petitioners is annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition and original copy of the sale deed dated 25.06.1968 is in possession of the petitioners. He submitted that matter should be sent back before consolidation authorities for fresh adjudication of dispute and petitioners will produce the original copy of sale deed before the Consolidation authorities in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that Gurnam Singh and Resham Singh, having 12/44 share in the property sold the entire land to respondent no. 4 by sale deed executed on 5.3.1965 which was registered on 3.4.1965. He further submitted that same land was again sold to the petitioners in illegal manner as such petitioners could not be given any right and title on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 25.06.1968. He further submitted that respondent No.4 and after his death his legal heirs are in physical possession of the land in dispute. He submitted that appellate jurisdiction under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was properly exercised by Settlement officer of Consolidation granting 12/44 share to respondent No.4 on the basis of sale deed executed on 5.3.1965/3.4.1965. He further submitted that in appeal petitioners were impleaded and noticed but petitioners have not set up their case along with sale deed as such there is no illegality in exercise of appellate jurisdiction which has been maintained in revision. He submitted that petitioners have not filed the original sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour before the Consolidation authorities as such the claim set up by the petitioners cannot be allowed in any manner. He submitted that explanation given for not filing the original copy of alleged sale deed cannot be accepted as such writ petition filed by petitioners cannot be entertained. He placed reliance upon the following judgment in support of his arguments:-
"1. 2019 (143) Rev Dec 215 Gausul Azam Vs. State of U.P. thru Secretary Revenue LKO & Ors.
2. 2024 0 AIR (SC)238 Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through LRs vs. Gejo (D) through LRs. and others
3. 2024 (12) ADJ 298 Jamia Urdu Aligar (Regd) vs. Jamil Urdu Sanstha and others
4. 2000 (1) ARC 112 Saudul Azeez vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur
5. (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 266 Ajay Singh vs. Khacheru and others
6. 2016 (130) RD 730 Rakesh Mohindra vs. Anita Beri and others"
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that title objection filed by respondent No.4 as well as Amar Singh & Jiwan Singh were decided by Consolidation Officer rejecting the claim of respondent No.4 but in appeal the claim of respondent No.4 was allowed for recording of his name on the basis of sale deed executed on 06.03.1965. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioners were dismissed.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter and reason assigned under the impugned revisional order the perusal of the finding of fact recorded under the impugned revisional order will be relevant which is as under:
???????? ???? ??????? ???????, ????? ?????? ???????, ??????????
?????- ??????
??????? ?????? 286 ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???
??????? ?????? 287 ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???
??????? ?????? 261 ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???
??????? ?????? 262 ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???
?????- ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????- ?????
???? 48 ??? ??????? ???????
??????
........................................................................................................................
????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??? ?? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? 126 ? 127 ?? ??? ???? ????? 128 ?? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? 19-02-82 ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? 127 ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? 25-6-68 ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? 25-6-68 ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? 6-8-60 ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? 180 ??????? ?????? 18-7-61 ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? 54??? ???? 19 ???? ???? 26-19-0 ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 22-6-60 ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? 22-11-60 ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? 7-12-60 ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? 216 ???? 3-1-0 ???? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?????? 20-4-61 ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? 216 ? 3-1-0 ???? ?? ?? ????? ???????????? ???? 30-6-60 ???? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? 30-06-60 ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??? 19 ????? ???? 26-19-0 ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ?? 6/44 ? 6/44 ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? 8/44 ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ? ??????? ???? ? ??? ???? ?? 19/32/44 ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? 19/32/44 ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??? ???? 9/44 ??? ???? ?? ????? 19/32/44 ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? 12/44 ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? 30-6-60 ?? 13 ?????????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? 5 ?????????? ?? ?????? 5/13 ???? ???? ????? 12/44 ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? 64/572 ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? 6/44 ??? 12/44 ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? 19.02.1963 ??? 6-03-65 ?? ?? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? 6-3-65 ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????-???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? 06-03-65 ? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? 12/44 ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? 12 ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? 26-6-68 ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? 32/44 ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? 26-6-68 ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? 286 ? 287 ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? 25-6-68 ? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???
????
??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? 287, 261, 262 ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??????
??? ???? ???????
????? ?????? ???????,
?????????
?????? 9-2-1984??
?????- ???????
10. Perusal of the impugned revisional order as quoted above fully demonstrate that petitioners were impleaded in Appeal No. 127 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act and notices were issued to the petitioners but no claim was set up on behalf of petitioners as such there was no option except to decide all the three appeals which were clubbed and decided together.
11. The perusal of impugned revisional order further demonstrate that appellate court and revisional court have properly considered the sale deed set up by the parties and recorded finding of fact that sale deed set up by respondent No.4 is prior to the sale deed set up by petitioners and sale deed set up by respondent No.4 has been properly proved as such respondent no.4 was held to be recorded over 12/44 share of the plot in dispute which requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. It is also material to mention that original copy of sale deed dated 26.06.1968 has not been filed by petitioners before Consolidation authorities as such adverse inference was drawn by Consolidation authorities. The explanation given by petitioners for not filing the original copy of the sale deed dated 26.06.1968 cannot be accepted in the eye of law and litigation cannot be sent back before consolidation authorities for further adjudication of dispute so that litigation may go on for another 50 years.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out against the impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities in the title proceeding.
14. The writ petition is dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.07.2025
PS*
