Allahabad High Court
Tariq Yusuf Aziz And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27146
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 388 of 2025
Petitioner :- Tariq Yusuf Aziz And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anu Pratap Singh,Parvez Akhtar Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Kumar Mathur,Devraj Singh,Ratnesh Chandra,Shashwat Srivastava,Sumukhi Mehrotra,Uma Shankar Sahai
With
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 42 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sikandar Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Prin. Revenue, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Afzal Hasan,Bhavana Gupta,Devraj Singh,Shashwat Srivastava,Uma Shankar Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anu Pratap Singh,Parvez Akhtar Khan
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the both the petition(s) are being heard together and decided by means of this common judgment.
2. Heard Shri Anu Pratap Singh and Shri Parvez Akhtar Khan, learned counsel(s) for the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, Shri Uma Shankar Sahai and Shri Abhinav Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025; Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents in both the petitions; Shri Adi Nigam, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025.
3. In WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, the petitioners namely Tariq Yusu Aziz S/o Late Syed Abdul Aziz and Km. Saba Qamar D/o Late Qamar Mahmood have sought the following main relief(s) :-
"(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 alleged to be passed by Opposite Party No. 4 in Case No. 202/2024 (Tariq Yusuf others Sri Syed vs. Sikandar Khan) along with connected Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar vs. Sikandar Khan), as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 alleged to be passed by Opposite Party No. 7 and 10 in Case No. 43/2025 (Tariq Yusuf Aziz vs Sikandar Khan) along with Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar vs. Sikandar Khan) under section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as contained in ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this writ petition
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 to conduct inquiry and take action against Opposite Party No. 8, 9 and 10 with respect to allegations raised in present writ petition with regard to deliberate abuse of power by adopting corrupt practice to legalise the fraudulent proceedings of opposite party no. 9 and deliberately treating forged documents filed by opposite party no. 9 to be genuine.
4. In WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025, the petitioner namely Sikandar Khan S/o Late Shahjahan Khan has sought the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, during the pendency of the present petition. (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition)."
5. In both the petitions, the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC") in exercise of power under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") has been impeached.
6. From the facts indicated hereinafter, based upon the record, it would be apt to indicate at this stage that description of the cases in the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC, indicated below, appears to be a typographical error.
(i) Case No. 202 of 2024,
Computerized Case No. 2018531046000075,
(Tariq Yusuf Aziz and others Vs. Sikandar Khan).
(ii) Case No. 201 of 2024,
Computerized Case No. 2021531046000009,
(Saba Qamar Vs. Sikandar Khan)
7. Prayer (ii) sought in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025, quoted above, is in two parts.
8. First part relates to order dated 15.01.2025 and second part relates to quashing of proceedings of Case No. 43/2025 (Tariq Yusuf Aziz Vs. Sikandar Khan) as also of Case No. 201/2024 (Saba Qamar Vs. Sikandar Khan), under Section 9A(2) of Act of 1953.
9. In so far as, second part of the prayer aforesaid is concerned i.e. prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No. 43/2025 and Case No. 201/2024, the same cannot be acceded in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacky vs. Tiny, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 508, followed recently in the case of K. Valarmathi & Ors. Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 INSC 606. Accordingly, it is rejected.
10. In order to come to the conclusion as to whether the impugned order(s) dated 24.09.2024 and 15.01.2025 require interference by this Court, this Court took note of the following relevant facts :-
(i) An order was passed on 19.01.1989 by the DDC in Revision No. 826/939/1004/88-89 (Sikandar Khan Vs. Vilkis Begaum and Others), under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953.
(ii) On coming to know about the order dated 19.01.1989, the petitioners in WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025 preferred an application dated 20.06.2018 for recall of order dated 19.01.1989 and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.02.2021.
(iii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2021, Sikandar Khan preferred Writ Petition No. 7502 (Consolidation) of 2021 (Sikandar Khan Vs. D.D.C. Lucknow & Ors.) before this Court. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2021, affirmed the order dated 04.02.2021.
(iv) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that vide order dated 04.02.2021, the DDC after recalling of final order dated 19.01.1989, fixed the revision for 18.02.2021 for the purposes of hearing of parties.
(v) After dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 18.03.2021, whereby the order dated 04.02.2021 was affirmed, the DDC proceeded in the matter and after considering various facts of the case passed the final order dated 24.09.2024. Relevant portion of the same, which is impugned, is extracted herein-under :-
"??????? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ??0-826/939/1004/88-89 ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??????-04.02.2021 ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??????-19.01.1989 ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????-20.08.1986 ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????-09.06.1982 ?? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????-19.01.1989 ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????-04.02.2021 ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??????-20.08.1986 ??? 09.06.1982 ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??0- 202/2024 ?? ??? ??0-2018531046000075 ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ??0-309/2021 ?? ??? ??0-2021531046000009 ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????-20.08.1986 ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????-09.06.1982 ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?? ????-??????? ?? ??? ????????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? 03 ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??????-10.10.2024 ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????? ????? ???"
(vi) A bare perusal of relevant portion of the impugned order dated 24.09.2024, quoted above, indicates as under.
(a) The order of remand has been passed after taking note of the fact that the original file of the case decided by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Lucknow (in short "CO") vide order dated 09.06.1982 and the original file of the Case/Appeal decided vide order dated 20.08.1996 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "SOC") are not available.
(b) The DDC directed the CO to reconstruct the file and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, which includes adducing the evidence, adjudicate the dispute of the parties.
(c) The DDC set aside the order of SOC dated 20.08.1986 and CO dated 09.06.1982.
(d) The DDC directed the CO to implead Gaon Sabha and State.
(vii) After the order of DDC dated 24.09.2024, the CO passed the final order in the case on 15.01.2025, which is impugned in the WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025.
(viii) Undisputedly, the paper-book was not reconstructed by the CO and based upon the material available, as was available before the DDC, the CO passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2025.
(ix) Thus, the order dated 15.01.2025 of CO is contravention/violation of the remand order of the DDC dated 24.09.2024.
11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts including the fact that reconstruction of file is required for deciding the lis between the parties aforesaid also other parties i.e. State, Gaon Sabha and Awas Vikas Parishad, who according to the parties before this Court acquired the land in dispute, this Court is of the view that the interference in the order dated 24.09.2024 is not required and in the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 the interference is required as the same has been passed in violation of order of remand dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 is hereby set aside.
12. The matter is remanded back to CO for deciding the same afresh after taking note of the spirit of order dated 24.09.2024 passed by DDC and also of this order.
13. The CO shall first reconstruct the paper-book.
14. Thereafter, the CO shall implead the State as also the Gaon Sabha, in view of Section 11(c) of the Act of 1953 and observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Rama Kant Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko and Another (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:22217), and also the Avas Vikas Parishad in the case to be decided.
15. After the above, the CO shall provide proper opportunity to the parties, which means providing opportunity to plead the case and adduce evidence in support thereof.
16. Thereafter, the CO shall decide the matter (lis between the parties) by reasoned and speaking order, most expeditiously.
17. Accordingly, WRIT - B No. 388 of 2025 is party allowed in terms of above. WRIT - B No. 42 of 2025 is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2025
Mohit Singh/-
