Allahabad High Court
Afsari Begum And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25465
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 399 of 2025
Petitioner :- Afsari Begum And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Bhup Chandra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Advocate alongwith Sri Bhup Chandra Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate alongwith Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, Advocate, learned State counsel.
2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by opp. party no. 2 i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation Sultanpur in Revision No. 1755 of 2024 (Computerised Case No. 202454046800001755) Afsari Begum & Others Vs Rafiq & Others U/S 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the Order dated 02.01.2003 passed by Consolidation Officer (Record Operation) Sultanpur in Case No. 2688 U/S 42A of U.P.C.H. Act relating to New Plot No. 3561 (which has been made from Old Plot No. 5066/1) & New Plot No. 3560 (which has been made from Old Plot No. 5066/2) situated in Village-Tato Muraini, Pergana-Chanda, Tehsil-Lambhua, Distt.-Sultanpur as contained in Annexures No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition."
3. Vide impugned order dated 14.02.2025, the respondent No. 2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur (in short "DDC") dismissed the Revision registered as Case No. 1755/2024, Computerized Case No. 202454046800001755 (Afsari Begum and others vs. Rafiq and others), under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") filed by the petitioners, whereby, the order dated 02.01.2003 passed by the respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer (Record Operation), Sultanpur (in short "CO") in Case No. 2688, under Section 42 of the Act of 1953 was challenged.
4. The order impugned dated 14.02.2025 reads as under:-
"????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? 2688 ?????? ???????? ????-42 ???????? ????? ????? 02-01-2003 ?? ??????? ?????? 23-04-2024 ?? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? 3561 ?? ?????? ???? ??0 5066/1 ?? ??????? ??, ??? ??????? ???? ??? 3560 ?? ?????? ???? ??? 5066/2 ?? ??????? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????-52 ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????-42 ??? ????????????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??0 3561, 3560 ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? -52 ?? ??? ????-42 ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????????????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????-27(3) ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??0??0 2019 (142) ??? 656 ? 575 ???????? ?? ??? ???? - 42 ??? ?? ????????????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ????????????? ???? - 52 ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? (??????) ?? ???????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? 02-01-2003 ?????? ?? ???? ??0 3561 ? 3560 ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????
???????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 02-01-2003 ?? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 02-01-2003 ?? ??????? ?????? 23-04-2024 ?? ???? 21 ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? 5039/??0-415/2019-20 ?????? 06 ??????, 2023 ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????-5 ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????-52 ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??, ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???"
5. The order impugned dated 02.01.2003 is also extracted hereinunder, as the same is relevant:-
"02.01.03
?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? 3560 ????? ?????? ???? ??? 5066/1 ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? 07.10.02 ? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 12.06.01 ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??
????
????? ?? ???? ?????? 07.10.02 ? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? 12.06.01 ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ???"
6. The above quoted impugned orders dated 14.02.2025 and 02.01.2003 have been impeached on the following two ground(s)/aspect(s):-
(i) In paragraph 7 of the memo of revision, which is extracted hereunder, the delay in challenging the impugned order dated 02.01.2003 was properly explained, as such, in dismissing the revision vide impugned order dated 14.02.2025 on the ground that delay has not been explained properly, the DDC erred in law and fact both.
"????7- ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? 22.04.24 ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????????? ???? ??? 5 ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????"
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.01.2003 was passed by CO in exercise of power under Section 42 of the Act of 1952 after publication of Notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 and being so, the same was passed without there being any authority in this regard. In other words, the order dated 02.01.2003 passed by CO is without jurisdiction.
7(i). In so far as the explanation given in paragraph 7 of the memo of revision, quoted above, regarding challenging the impugned order dated 02.01.2003 after huge delay i.e. delay of about 21 years is concerned, this Court took note of the contents of the said paragraph and also the fact that application under Section 32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") was submitted in the office of competent authority i.e. District Magistrate, Sultanpur on 06.09.2022 and revision, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.02.2025, was filed before the DDC on 23.04.2024. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that explanation given in paragraph 7 of the memo of revision to condone the delay of about 21 years in challenging the order dated 02.01.2003 passed by CO has not been explained properly. It is for the reason that in paragraph 7 of the memo of revision, quoted in para 6(i) of this judgment, the mode, manner as also the date of receiving of information with regard to the order dated 02.01.2003 has not been mentioned.
7(ii). Thus, in view of the aforesaid, dismissal of revision by the DDC vide impugned order dated 14.02.2025 on the ground that delay has not been explained properly, to the view of this Court, is justified, and being so, no interference in the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 is required by this Court.
8. At this stage, it would be apt to indicate that Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners opened his arguments on the merits of the case based upon Sections 42 and 52 of the Act of 1953 and on being asked to advance submissions on the explanation given with regard to condonation of delay, the submissions were advanced accordingly, and after some arguments when this Court put queries to Sri Srivastava with regard to mode, manner and date of knowledge etc. related to the order dated 02.01.2003, he in response sought time to file a better affidavit in this regard and this Court declined to entertain the said prayer for the reason that by way of a supplementary affidavit, the averments made in para 7 of the memo of revision, quoted above, cannot be improved.
9. Now reverting, this Court is also not interfering in the impugned order dated 02.01.2003 on the ground that the same was passed without there being any authority in view of Sections 42 and 52 of the Act of 1953. It is for the following reasons:-
(a) The map prepared in the consolidation proceedings corrected in terms of the order dated 02.01.2003 was not prepared in accordance with 'pustikarata map' prepared during consolidation proceedings.
(b) Proper approach/access has been provided to the tenure holders of Gata No. 3560 by correcting map as this plot has now become a proper plot on roadside, which is one of the intents of the consolidation proceedings to be carried out under the Act of 1953.
(c) The petitioners want to grab more area adjacent to roadside land.
(d) The old number of Gata No. 3561 belonging to the petitioners was increased to about 20 Latthas, which has been corrected and this aspect of the case has not been impeached in the instant petition. The report dated 12.06.2001 in this regard submitted, which has not been impeached, is extracted hereinunder:-
"????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? 3560 ? 3561 ?? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? 41 ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????
???? ?????? 3561 ?????? ???? ?????? 5066/1 ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? 3560 ?????? ???? ?????? 5066/2 ?? ?????? 41 ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? 3561 ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? 20 ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? 3560 ?? ??? ???
???? ?????? 3560 ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? 3561, 3562, 3563 ??? 3565 ???????? ???? ????
???????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? 3560 ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? 3561, 3562, 3563 ??? 3565 ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? 41 ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ???
??????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???
????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???"
(e) Thus, in view of above, to the view of this Court, substantial justice has been done between the parties and interference in the impugned order dated 02.01.2003 would revive illegality related to providing roadside area to a tenure holder and as such, in view of various pronouncements on this aspect of the case including the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P; AIR 1966 SC 828, Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar; AIR 1999 SC 3609, Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of Karnataka; AIR 2000 SC 2976, Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan; AIR 2003 SC 2889, State of Uttaranchal v. Ajit Singh Bhola; 2004 6 SCC 800, State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty; 2011 3 SCC 436 and M.S. Sanjay vs. Indian Bank and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 368, the same is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 2.5.2025/Arun/-
