Allahabad High Court
Krisna Kumar Dubey vs Up Sanchalak Chakbandhi, Ayodhya And ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61275
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - B No. - 923 of 2025
Krisna Kumar Dubey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Up Sanchalak Chakbandhi, Ayodhya And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sudhir Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ganga Prasad Mishra, Mohan Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
- Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3, Sri Ganga Prasad Mishra appearing for respondent No.s 4 and 5 and Sri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya holding brief of Sri MOhan Singh for respondent No.6.
- It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to gata No.236/0.662 hectare situated in Village Bibipur, Pargana Paschimrath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya. It has been submitted that the proceedings under Section 9 A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were concluded by the Consolidation Officer by passing order dated 9.2.1989 and subsequently proceedings under Section 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules were initiated and appropriate orders were passe on 1st April, 2013. Against the ex-parte order dated 18.6.2013 opposite parties had preferred appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H.Act and against the order passed under Rule 109 of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules also appeal was preferred both the of which were clubbed together and decided by means of order dated 15.2.2014 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. While passing order dated 15.2.2014 the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer and both the orders were set aside. In the remand proceedings an order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 27.5.2014. The Consolidation Officer inspite of proceeding to re-hear and re-determine the issue raised before him, as directed by the appellate authority, proceeded merely to comply with the order of the appellate court and ordered necessary corrections be made in the revenue records. He took into account the fact that his previous orders have been set aside and the matter has been remanded and only directed for correcting the revenue records. Against the order dated 27.5.2014 the private respondents had preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who by means of the impugned order dated 11.7.2023 has allowed the appeal again remanding the matter back o the Consolidation Officer directing him to decide the matte afresh in light of the previous order dated 15.2.2014.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal itself was not maintainable in as much as it arises out of the proceedings under Section 109 of U.P.C.H.Rules which do not provide for any appeal and any order passe under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H.Act can be appealed under Section 11 of U.P.C.H.Act
- It is in light of the aforesaid submissions that he has repelled the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.Act
- Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that against the orders dated 9.2.1989 and 1.4.2013 appeals were preferred before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. There is no dispute that one appeal was under Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H.Act where the order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.2.1989 was challenged while the second appeal was against the order passed under Rule 109 of Consolidation Of Holdings Rules and both the said appeals were clubbed and decided by a common order dated 15.2.2014 of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Accordingly, it is noticed that both the matters pertain to the dispute arising out under Section 9 of the Act as well as under Rule 109 were decided together by a common judgment. This aspect has been noticed by the Consolidation Officer when he passed order on 27.5.2014. There is again no dispute that in the remand proceedings the Consolidation Officer did not decide any of the issues as remanded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and merely proceeded to make necessary corrections in the revenue records. Again it is relevant to notice that the order dated 27.5.2014 was a combined order in exercise of the powers under Section 9 as well as Rule 109 of Consolidation of Holdings Act and Rules respectively.
- Against the order dated 27.5.2014 when appeal was again filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation then it cannot be said that the said appeal was only against the order under Section 109 of U.P.C.H.Act and Rules in as much as even merits of the case was under consideration before the appellate court. There is no dispute with regard to legal proposition as submitted on behalf of the petitioner relying upon the coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Satgur Deen and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others passed in Consolidation Case No.18997 of 2017 where this Court was of the considered view as relying upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Faujdar S. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2002 (2) AWC 1012 that there is no provision for any revision against the order passed under Rule 109 (A) of C.H.Act after issuance of notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act and only remedy that a person has to approach under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
- We find that the law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court does not apply to the facts of the present case which are clearly distinguishable as in the present case both the proceedings under Section 9 and Rule 109 were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, there is again no dispute with regard to the fact that any order passed in exercise of the powers under Section 9 is appellable under Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H.Act and further revision would be maintainable under Section 48 of C.H.Act. Accordingly, it is found that when the authorities itself had clubbed both the appeals then the appeal under Section 11 as well as revision under Section 48 would be maintainable. This Court finds that in this view of the matter against the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation the petitioner would have remedy under Section 48 of U. P. C. H. Act.
- In light of the above, the petition is relegated to statutory remedy of revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.Act. The petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
October 6, 2025
RKM.
