Allahabad High Court
Adesh Singh Bhadoria And Another vs District D.D.C./Collector Etawah And 3 ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserve on 24.09.2025
Judgment delivered on 17.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 55684 of 2017
Adesh Singh Bhadoria and another
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
District D.d.c./Collector Etawah and 3 others
..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pradeep Kumar (senior Adv.), Praveen Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anil Kumar Sharma, C.S.C., Devesh Kumar Verma, Dinesh Prasad, Kapil Kumar, Puneet Bhadauria, Santosh Kumar Shivhare (in Person), Suresh Chandra Verma
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar (Senior Counsel), assisted by Shri Onkar Nath Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent no.3, Santosh Kumar (in person), as well as learned Standing counsel for the state respondents no. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 4 is dead and her substitution application is disposed of, vide order dated 02.12.2020, in terms that one of the heirs is already on record as respondent no. 3 and liberty rests with another heir ( Anand Singh) to litigate the matter of succession at an appropriate forum.
2. Before addressing the merits of the instant writ petition, it would be apposite to mention that concerning the property in question, two simultaneously proceedings are going on before this Court; one is Second Appeal No. 867 of 2013, arising out of Original Suit No.335 of 1987, and another is the writ petition in hand, being Writ-B No. 55684 of 2017. This court has passed a separate order dated 17.05.2022 in Second Appeal No. 867 of 2013 to club the second appeal with the present Writ-B No. 55684 of 2017. Subsequently, the second appeal was admitted by an order dated 17.09.2024 and posted for final hearing along with the connected Writ-B No. 55684 of 2017. Having considered the status of both matters being clubbed together, which belong to the different rosters of this Court, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide order dated 10.02.2025, has directed both the aforesaid matters to be placed before this Court. As such, the documents of both the case as well as the photostat copy of record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10031 of 1989, decided vide order dated 27.04.1989, produced by counsel for the petitioners, available on board, have been perused by this court. Both matters are heard one after another. However, for judicial propriety and convenience to the parties in the lis, both aforementioned cases, to wit, Writ-B No. 55684 of 2017 and Second Appeal No. 867 of 2013, are being decided by separate orders.
3. Instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Rules'). Petitioners are aggrieved with the orders dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') in Appeal No. 59 of 2015/16 and the order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C') in Revision No. D201703220371 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'the U.P.C.H. Act'). Respective affidavits between the parties have been exchanged. Respondent no. 3 has filed brief written submission, as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the Civil Misc. Application No. 25 of 2025, on 18.04.2025. However, no counter submission/reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to the aforementioned application supported by the affidavit.
4. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the village- Kamet, Pargana & Tehsil & District Etawah was brought under the consolidation operations through a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act promulgated in August 1976. During the Consolidation operation, Jiya Lal (father of respondent no. 3 and husband of respondent no. 4) had purchased plot no. 1254, area 0.77 acres, through a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1977 executed by Sri Kishun, son of Banbari Lal, with permission of the S.O.C. by order dated 28.04.1977 passed under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P.C.H. Act. At the stage of Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act, there was no dispute with regard to the right, title and interest of the parties over the plot in question. In the provisional Consolidation Scheme, prepared under Section 19-A and published under Section 20(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, Jiya Lal had been proposed chak no.256 consisting of plot no.3015, area 0.82 acres, plot no.3016, area 0.02 acres and plot no.3019, area 0.02 acres, a total of three plots measuring area 0.86 acres. However, one Gyan Singh S/o Bhikhari had been proposed chak no.149 consisting of plot no.3015 M area 0.09 acres, 3016 M area 1.20 acres and 3019 M area 0.02 acres, a total of three plots measuring area 1.31 acres. Having been dissatisfied with the proposed chak, Gyan Singh (chak holder no.149) filed an objection under Section 20(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act, being Case No. 483. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 26.04.1979 passed under Section 21(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, has modified the chaks of Gyan Singh and Jiya Lal. Accordingly, Jiya Lal (chak holder no.256) has been proposed chak over plot nos.1254, 1253, 1255/1 and 1257, a total of four plots measuring 0.73 acres. However, chak no.149 of Gyan Singh has been slightly modified and shifted from plot no. 3019 M, area 0.02 acres, and plot no. 3016 M, area 0.60 acres, to plot no. 3015, area 0.52 acres. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jiya Lal has preferred an appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before the S.O.C., being Appeal No. 561. Another appeal no. 553 was preferred by the third person, namely, Phundi Lal (chak No. 439). The appellate court, by a common order dated 28.6.1979 ( Annexure No. C.A.- 7A), has allowed both appeals and reverted the chak of the Jiya Lal (chak no. 256) to the initial stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, i.e. plot nos. 315, 316 and 319, totalling three plots measuring area 0.86 acres. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 28.06.1979 passed by the S.O.C., Gyan Singh has preferred revision being Revision No.736/227 under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The D.D.C., vide order dated 28.03.1980 (Annexure No. C.A.-7B), has allowed the revision and allotted chak to Jiya Lal at the stage of the Consolidation Officer, i.e. plot nos. 1254, 1253 and 1255/1. Having been aggrieved, Jiya Lal has preferred Writ Petition no. 3992 of 1980. This Court, vide order dated 27.11.1987 (Annexure No. 1 to Supplementary Affidavit dated 07.05.2018), has allowed the writ petition and relegated the parties before the D.D.C. to get the matter decided afresh. It appears that after the remand order had been passed, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, namely, Baba Chhote Das, had moved an impleadment application during the pendency of revision before the D.D.C. and was ordered to be impleaded vide order dated 19.09.1988 (Annexure No. 5). During the pendency of the revision, Gyan Singh and Jiya Lal arrived at a compromise on 25.02.1989 to the effect that they will abide by the order dated 28.06.1979 passed by the S.O.C. The said compromise was verified by the court of D.D.C. and, subsequently, vide order dated 06.04.1989, the revision was dismissed as not pressed based on the compromise took place between the parties. A copy of compromise application dated 25.02.1989, compromise verification order dated 02.03.1989 and final order dated 06.04.1989 are collectively filed as annexure No. C.A.4B to the counter affidavit. The order passed by the D.D.C. based on a compromise was mentioned in C.H. Form 45 (Annexure No. C.A.4A) aginst the new khata No. 235 of Jiya Lal. It is apposite to mention that the village was de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 24.9.1983, and the plot no. 3015 area 0.82 acres, plot no.3016 area 0.02 acres and plot no.3019 area 0.02 acres, totalling three plots measuring area 0.86 acres, have been allotted a new identity being plot no.2338 M area 0.86 acres. In the meantime, Baba Chhote Das filed a writ petition, being Writ No.10031 of 1989, assailing the order dated 6.4.1989 passed by the D.D.C. This court, vide order dated 27.04.1989, has disposed of the writ petition with a direction that "it is expected that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in his occupation unless fresh proceedings are initiated against him either by the contesting respondent nos.3 & 4 or by consolidation authorities".
5. Having been dissatisfied with the order dated 27.04.1989 passed by this Court, Jiya Lal had preferred a review petition, which was disposed of, vide order dated 19.07.1991, whereby previous order dated 27.04.1989 was clarified to the extent that the consolidation authorities can proceed with the proceedings if they can deal with the claim of the petitioner also in that proceeding otherwise, reasonable opportunity to the petitioner is but essential before evicting him from the land in his occupation. Photostat copy of Review Application and order dated 19.07.1991 passed on it, appended with the record of Writ Petition No. 10039 of 1989, are supplied by counsel for the petitioners, in court room. For ready reference order dated 19.07.1991 is quoted herein below :
"Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed in support of the application dated 16.8.90. The order dated 16.7.90 is hereby recalled. But, the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to satisfy me that the order dated 27.4.89 suffers from any patent error. Therefore, the application for reviewing the aforesaid order stands rejected even today.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is to the effect that due to the observation in the order dated 27.4.89 the whole proceedings stand stayed. If the consolidation authorities can grant relief to the applicant after hearing the writ petitioner and dealing with his claim they can proceed strictly in accordance with law. However, it is again emphasised that the petitioner may not be evicted from the land in his occupation without giving him reasonable opportunity to substantitate his claim. The applicant prays for a direction to go on with the allotment of chaks proceedings. It is sufficient to observe that the consolidation authorities can proceed with the proceedings if they can deal with the claim of the petitioner also in that proceeding otherwise reasonable opportunity to the petitioner is but essential before evicting the petitioner from the land in his occupation.
With the above clarification the application moved by the opposite party no.3 is hereby disposed of.
A certified copy of this order may be given to the counsel for the parties within twenty-four hours on payment of usual charges."
(emphasis supplied by the court)
6. In the meantime, Jiya Lal (predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 3 and 4) has initiated a proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules in compliance with the order dated 06.04.1989 passed by D.D.C. based on a compromise dated 25.02.1989. During said proceedings, the Tehsildar has submitted its report dated 03.04.1991, and the Consolidation Officer has submitted its spot inspection report dated 05.05.1999. Having been dissatisfied with the said reports, Baba Chhote Das (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) and Jiya Lal (predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 3 and 4) have filed their objections respectively and prayed for fresh spot inspection. The D.D.C., vide its order dated 06.02.2007 (Annexure No. C.A.5), has issued directions for submitting a fresh joint report by the Tehsildar and the Consolidation Officer. In pursuance of the order dated 06.02.2007, a joint report dated 17.02.2007 (Annexure No. C.A.- 3) has been submitted by the Consolidator, Naib Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer. Subsequently, having considered that matter should be decided by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, the D.D.C., vide order dated 23.12.2008, has referred the matter before the Consolidation Officer. For ready reference, orders dated 06.02.2007 is quoted below:
Order dated 06.02.2007
पत्रावली पेश हुई । पुकार कराई गई । पक्षकार मय अधिवक्ता उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रतिवादी संतोष कुमार आदि की ओर से नियम 109 चकबन्दी एक्ट का निस्तारण तहसील इटावा के अधिकारियों के साथ मिल कर करने व बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी, चकबन्दी इटावा पारित अपील संख्या 461 जियालाल बनाम हरीशंकर आदि दिनांक 28-06-1979 अन्तर्गत धारा 21 (2) चकबन्दी एक्ट वावत 'चक संख्या 256 व 149 आदि का अमल दरामद कराने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया गया। बाबा छोटेदास की ओर से मृतक जियालाल के परिवार रजिस्टर की छाया प्रति तथा आनन्द सिंह पुत्र मैरू सिंह नि०गल्ला मण्डी भिण्ड (म०प्र०) के द्वारा मृतक जियालाल के वारिसानों को अंकित मुकद्दमा किये जाने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र दिया गया।
न्यायालय में उपस्थित उभयपक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्ताओं के तर्कों को सुना गया एवं पत्रावली का विधिक परिशीलन किया गया। तहसीलदार, इटावा द्वारा प्रेषित आख्या दिनांक 03-04-1991 तथा चकबन्दी अधिकारी, बढ़पुरा की स्थलीय आख्या दिनांक 05-05-1999 का अवलोकन किया गया। आख्या दिनांक 05-05-1999 के अनुसार जियालाल व छोटेदास ने एतराज करते हुये पुनः स्थलीय आख्या मंगाये जाने की मांग की। आख्या में गाटा संख्या 2337 व 2338 का रकवा भी नहीं खोला गया है तथा अभिलेखीय आख्या में आकार पत्र 23 का उल्लेख नहीं है जिससे प्रकरण का निस्तारण नहीं हो पा रहा है।
अतः तहसीलदार, इटावा तथा चकबन्दी अधिकारी, बढ़पुरा को संयुक्त रूप से निर्देशित किया जाता है कि स्थलीय जांच करके स्पष्ट रूप से आख्या दिनांक 17-02-2007 तक भिजवाना सुनिश्चित करें तथा सम्पूर्ण अभिलेखीय आख्या दिनांक 17-02-2007 तक उपलब्ध करायें । आदेश की प्रति संबंधित को भेजी जावे।
The file has been placed. Case called out. Both parties appeared along with their respective counsel. An application has been submitted on behalf of the defendants, Santoskumar and others, seeking disposal of the matter under Rule 109 of the UP Consolidation of Holding Act in coordination with the officers of the Tehsil Etawah, and for execution of the order passed in appeal No. 461, Jiya Lal vs Harishankar and others dated 28-6-1979 under section 21 (2) of the consolidation of Holding Act in respect of chak No. 256, 149 and others. On behalf of Baba Chote Das, a photocopy of the family register of deceased Jia Lal was filed. Additionally, Anand Singh s/o Mairu Singh r/o Gallla Mandi, Bhind (Madhya Pradesh) filed an application seeking that the heirs of deceased Jiya Lal be substituted in the proceeding.
The arguments advanced by learned counsel for both parties present in court have been heard, and the record has been scrutinised. The report dated 03-04-1991 submitted by Tehsildar Etawah, as well as the spot inspection report dated 05-05-1999 submitted by Consolidation Officer, Badpur, have been perused. According to the report dated 05-05-1999, objections were raised by Jiya Lal and Chote Das requesting that a fresh spot inspection report be obtained. Further, the area of plot N0. 2337 and 2338 were not specified in said report, and there is no reference to CH Form 23, due to which the matter could not be finally disposed of.
As such, the Tehsildar Etawah and the Consolidation Officer, Badpur, are hereby jointly directed to conduct a spot inspection and ensure that a clear and detailed report is submitted to this court on or before 17-2-2007. They are further directed to provide the complete documentary report by the said date. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned authorities for compliance.
(English Translation by Court)
7. The Consolidation Officer, in pursuance of the order dated 23.12.2008, has adjudicated the proceedings under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules and passed an order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure No. C.A. -6A) to correct the consolidation record/land revenue record in compliance of the compromise orders dated 25.02.1989/ 06.04.1989 passed by D.D.C. and order dated 27.11.1987 passed by High Court. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 10.12.2010, Baba Chhote Das had preferred an appeal dated 17.03.2011, i.e. Appeal No. 47 of 2010-11 under Rule 109-A(3) of U.P.C.H. Rules. The S.O.C. has dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 18.04.2013, however, made an observation that the appellant shall not be evicted from the temple, since the order dated 27.04.1989 passed by the Hon'ble High Court became final and parties are at liberty to initiate separate proceedings. Baba Chhote Das had moved a miscellaneous application in pursuance of the order dated 18.04.2013 to get his name recorded in the revenue record over plot nos. 2337 and 2338. On the aforesaid application, the Consolidation Officer has passed an order dated 19.05.2014 for issuing parwana amaldaramad. Having been aggrieved with the direction dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no.3 has preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 59 of 2015-16, under Rule 109A-(3) of U.P.C.H. Rules. The S.O.C., vide order dated 10.08.2016, has allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 19.05.2014 with an observation that the Consolidation Officer has illegally mentioned the plot nos. 2337 and 2338, whereas no such observation was made in the previous order dated 18.04.2013. Accordingly, direction was made to issue a parwana, as per present status. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by S.O.C., the present petitioners have preferred revision. D.D.C. has dismissed the revision, vide order dated 26.08.2017, which is under challenge before this court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced a solitary submission that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Baba Chhote Das, are throughout in possession of the plot nos. 2337 and 2338. However, despite the direction of this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 27.04.1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 10031 of 1989, that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the land in their occupation unless fresh proceedings are initiated against them either by the contesting respondent nos. 3 and 4, or by the consolidation authorities, neither the fresh proceeding has been initiated to evict the petitioners, nor have they been heard by the consolidation authorities before passing the orders. To bolster his submission, he has emphasised the order dated 27.04.1989 passed by this Hon'ble Court and further submits that Temple exists over the plots in question and to protect his interest, Baba Chhote Das and his successors have throughout litigated the matter since 1987.
9. Per contra, respondent no.3 (appearing in person) has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that :-
9(i) the petitioners and their predecessors were throughout accorded the opportunity of hearing to protect their interest; however, they could not prove their right, title and interest over plot nos. 2337 and 2338.
9(ii) It is further contended that in pursuance of the subsequent clarification order dated 19.07.1991 passed in the review application, the consolidation authorities have examined the claim of the petitioners and discarded the same, having not found any justifiable ground.
9(iii) Respondent no.3 has emphasised that petitioners have failed to establish their right, title and interest over the property in question, i.e. Plot No. 2338, even before this court, despite the opportunity granted vide order dated 02.12.2020.
9(iv) He has further contended that proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, which is an execution proceeding in nature, has rightly been decided in his favour.
9(v) It has been emphasised, as well, that at no point in time, Baba Chhote Das was recorded in the land revenue record. Even during the consolidation proceeding, he has not filed any objection claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question. Therefore, at a subsequent stage, after de-notification dated 24.09.1983 under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, his claim is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, it manifests that the question for consideration in the instant writ petition lies in a narrow compass, as to:- whether Baba Chhote Das (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners), who claimed right, title and interest over plot nos. 2337 and 2338, was accorded an opportunity of hearing in compliance with the order dated 27.04.1989, as subsequently clarified by order dated 19.07.1991, passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10031 of 1989, or not?
11. Admittedly respondent no. 3 has no concern with the plot no. 2337. However, he is claiming his right, title and interest over the plot no. 2338, measuring area 0.86 hectare, which emanates, after completion of the consolidation operation, from old plot no. 3015 (area 0.82 acres), plot no. 3016 (area 0.02 acres) and plot no. 3019 (area 0.02 acres) i.e. totalling three plots measuring area 0.86 acres. Aforesaid plots were allotted in the chak no. 256 of Jiya Lal (predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 3 and 4) in compliance of the compromise order dated 25.02.1989/06.04.1989 passed by the D.D.C. There is no documentary evidence to disclose/establish that there was initially any title dispute between the parties concerning the plot in question, which has since been finalized in the chak of the Jiya lal (father of respondent no.3), during the consolidation operation. However, at subsequent stage, Baba Chhote Das (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) had intervened in the revisional proceeding before the D.D.C. and came to be impleaded, vide order dated 19.09.1988. The D.D.C., while deciding impleadment application by order dated 19.09.1988, has observed that it is a chak allotment proceeding and it is difficult to ascertain whose chak would be affected; thus, Baba Chhote Das is also entitled to the opportunity of being heard. For ready reference, relevant paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the order dated 19.09.1988 are quoted below:
"7- पक्षों के तर्क सुनने के उपरान्त मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचा हूँ कि यह मामला चक का है और इसमें किसी के स्वत्व निर्धारित नहीं होते हैं। केवल मूल जोत के बदले संहत भूमि दी जाती है। उसमें आस पास के चकदार भी प्रभावित हो सकते हैं। जैसाकि कि पत्रावली पर रखे गये अभिलेखों से स्पष्ट है जिया लाल द्वारा प्रार्थी छोटे सिंह के विरूद्ध न्यायालय मुन्सिफ में एक दावा दायर किया है। चक के समायोजन में कौन चकदार प्रभावित हो जाय, यह पहले से नहीं कहा जा सकता है। ऐसी स्थिति में यदि बाबा छोटे दास की भी सुनवाई का अवसर दिया जाता है तो इससे निगरानीकर्ता अथवा विपक्षी का कोई अहित नहीं है।
8- अतः न्यायहित में बाबा छोटे दास को इस निगरानी में दस रूपये हर्जा पर पक्षकार बनाए जाते हैं। पत्रावली गुणदोष पर सुनवाई के लिये दिनाँक 19.10.88 को पेश हो। "
"After hearing the arguments of the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this matter pertains to a chak which does not determine ownership rights and title of any party. Equal value of land is only allotted in exchange for the original holding. Due to which adjourning chak holders may also be affected. As is evident from the records placed in the file, Jiya Lal has filed a suit in the court of the Munsif against applicant Chhote Singh. It cannot be predicted in advance which chak holder may be affected during the adjustment of the chak. In such a situation, if Baba Chhote Das is also given an opportunity to be heard, it would not cause any harm to the revisionist or the opposite party.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, Baba Chhote Das is made a party in this revision at the cost of Rs 10. The file is to be presented for hearing on merits on 19.10.1988."
(English Translation by Court)
12. Perusal of impleadment order dated 19.09.1988, prima facie, evinces that the learned D.D.C. had permitted Baba Chhote Das to participate in the revision proceeding, pretending him one of the chak holders, who could be affected due to any change in the chaks of the parties. The institution of a civil suit (O.S. No.355 of 1987) against Baba Chhote Das, which was pending at the relevant time, had also influenced the mind of the D.D.C. Despite his impleadment in revision, vide order dated 19.09.1988, Baba Chhote Das had not filed any documentary evidence to prove his ownership over the property in question, i.e., plot no. 2338 or allotment of chak in his favour over the said plot before the final order dated 06.04.1989 passed by D.D.C. However, during the pendency of revision, Jiya Lal and Gyan Singh had inked a compromise dated 25.02.1989 and, accordingly, revision was decided by order dated 06.04.1989. Both parties have accepted the chaks allotted, by the order dated 28.06.1979, at the stage of S.O.C., wherein neither Baba Chhote Das was a party nor his chak was disturbed. Thus, deciding the revision based on compromise has no bearing upon the interest of Baba Chhote Das, who, despite full opportunity from 19.09.1988 to 06.04.1989, had not filed a single document to prove his right, title and possession over the plot no. 2338. It is apposite to mention that having been aggrieved by the interference of Baba Chhote Das in his possession over plot no. 2338, Jiya Lal has filed a civil suit dated 04.07.1987, being O.S. No. 335 of 1987, for permanent prohibitory injunction. During the pendency of the suit, relief for demolition of construction and delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff has been prayed for as well. Said suit was concurrently dismissed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court, precisely, on the ground that the writ petition arising out of the title proceeding under the U.P.C.H. Act is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court. Having been aggrieved, Second Appeal No. 867 of 2013 has been filed assailing the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, which is connected with this writ petition.
13. Now, the question arises as to what right, title and interest Baba Chhote Das (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) had over the property in question, i.e. plot no.2338 measuring area 0.86 acres. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate as to how petitioners are claiming their right, title and interest over the plot in question. Neither the relevant land revenue records nor the consolidation records have been filed before this Court, showing a revenue entry in the name of the petitioners. Furthermore, no records related to title proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P.C.H. Act or any chak allotment proceeding under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act have been filed. Moreover, no piece of evidence has been adduced by the petitioners to prove their legal right and title over the plot in question, even though this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2020, has granted time to the counsel for the petitioners to establish the existence of a temple over the plot in question. Relevant portion of the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:
" Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners fairly admits that the temple in question is standing over Abadi land and it is admitted to the parties on record that as far as the consolidation proceedings are concerned neither plot no. 2339 nor plot no. 2338 at any point of time was at all incorporated in any form CH 18 declaring it to be Abadi, however, he seeks time to further study the matter from the point of view as to whether during consolidation, temple in question came to be referred in any land record and thus if referred which exactly was the plot number in the basic year khatauni (CH 5).
Time prayed for is allowed.
Let the matter come up again for final arguments on 11.01.2021."
14. In compliance of order dated 02.12.2020, the petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit (II) dated 18.02.2021. In paragraph 7 of the aforementioned supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have attempted to submit a ambiguous reply, which is reproduced hereunder :-
"7. That the temple is in old temple of Sankat Mochan Hanuman Ji Maharaj which is situated over part of new plot No. 2337 and 2338, Abadi is mentioned after the said plots which is non Chak land and no Chakbandi operation was ever done on the aforesaid plots. The entries of 'Abadi' mentioned in Intekhab, Aakaarpatra-41 as well as Intekhab, Jot Chakbandi Aakaarpatra-2(Ga) are proving that the disputed land is not Abadi recorded as revenue record and without making any physical spot inspection and without leading the evidence by the parties, the controversy in question cannot be decided under the law, the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Revisional Court have not applied their mind over the controversy in dispute and they have illegally passed the order to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question, ignoring the judgment of writ petition No. 10031 of 1989 passed by this Hon'ble Court on 27.04.1989."
15. The petitioners claim the existence of a temple over plot no.2338, which has finally been allotted in chak no.256 (Jiya Lal); however, they failed to produce the relevant consolidation records, i.e. CH Form 2A, CH Form 5, CH 18 or CH 23 to establish the existence of the temple and their ownership over plot no.2338 (old plot no.3015 area 0.82 acres, 3016 area 0.02 acres and 3019 area 0.02 acres). The D.D.C., on page No. 3 of the order impugned, has referred the joint report dated 17.02.2007 submitted by Consolidation Lekhpal, Naib Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer. In joint report dated 17.02.2007 (Annexure No. C.A.- 3) it has unequivocally been mentioned that new plot no. 2337M, area 0.09, is recorded as Aabadi under class 6, new plot no. 2338M area 0.86 belongs to Jiya Lal and new plot no. 2338M area 0.04 belongs to Gyan Singh. It is further observed that a temple of GOD Hanumanji does exist over plot no. 2337M. Additionally, an unfinished/raw platform (Kachcha Chabutra), with dimensions North- 5 kadi, South- 40 kadi, West- 60 kadi and East- 70 kadi, exists on plot no. 2338, abutting the plot no. 2337, and an idol of GOD Hanumanji has been placed in the centre of the raw platform. However, there is no mention that the structure of the temple exists in plot no. 2338. Petitioners or their predecessor, namely, Baba Chhote Das, did not file any objection to said joint report dated. 17.02.2007, which became final between the parties and was subsequently relied upon by all consolidation authorities. English translation of report dated 17.02.2007 is produced hereunder:-
"Joint Report
Deputy Director Consolidation / Collector, Etawah.
Please kindly refer to the desired archival / on-site report in connection with the pending case number - 1257, 2/06-07 under section 48 chak mauja-Kamet par. District Etawah Gyan Singh vs. Jiyalal etc. in your court. In this regard, the archival and on-site report along with the visual map is as follows. Gata number - 2337 area 0.09 which is made from old no.-3008 area 0.09 and is a Aabadi number. Gata number -2338 area 0.90 which is made from old no.-3015mi area 0.65, 3016 mi0 area 0.22, 3019 mi area 0.03. Gata number 2339 area 1.27 which is made from old no.- 3015 mi area 0.26, 3016 mi area 1.00, 3019 area 0.01. At the Assistant Consolidation Officer level, old gata no.- 3015 mi area 0.09, 3016mi area 1.20, 3019 mi area 0.02 total 1.31 area chak number 149 was allotted to Gyan Singh son of Bhikhari. And old gata no.- 3015mi area 0-82, 3016mi area 0.02, 3019mi area 0.02 total 0.86 area chak number - 256 was allotted to Jiyalal son of Ramprasad. At the Consolidation Officer level, the said gatas of chak number 256 were cancelled and gata number - 1254 area 0.48, 1253 area 0.05, 1255/1 area 0.01, 1257mi area 0.19 were given. In chak number 149, the allotted gata number 3019mi area 0.02, 3016mi area 0.60 at the Assistant Consolidation Officer level were cancelled and gata no.- 3015 area 0.52 was given. At the Settlement Officer Consolidation level, the chak allotted at the Consolidation Officer level was cancelled and the previous chak number 256 at the Assistant Consolidation Officer level was retained. Similarly, the chak number 149 allotted at the Consolidation Officer level was cancelled and restored to the Assistant Consolidation Officer level. At the Deputy Director Consolidation level, chak number 256 at the Settlement Officer Consolidation level was cancelled and the chak at the Consolidation Officer level was retained, and from chak no.- 149, gata 3019 min area 0.01, 3015 mi area 0.03, 3016 mi area 0.20 were cancelled and gata 3015 min area 0.20 was given. Hon'ble High Court inWrit No. Zero / 1980 stayed the order no.-736/227/28.03.80 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Another order of the Hon'ble High Court is also recorded in the records: "Civil Writ Petition No.- Nil 1989 Baba Chhote Das son of Shri Lal resident Udi Mod village Kamet vs. Joint Director Consolidation Etawah decided on 27.04.89 ordered that the writ petition is finally disposed of, but it is expected that the opposite parties no.-3 & 4 Jiya Lal son of Ramprasad and Gyan Singh son of Bhikhari's ..................................................................................................................................................................................... (not clear in copy).
Keeping in view the order of the Hon'ble High Court, under the order no.- 1257/ 25.02.1989 of the Deputy Director Consolidation under section 48, it was ordered that as per the compromise, plot No. 1759 area 0.73 be struck off from khata no.- 235 and entered in the new fallow khata no.- 1114 and from khata no.- 1114, gata no.- 2338/area 0.90 be struck off and entered as gata no. 2338 mi/area 0.86 in khata no.- 235 at the Settlement Officer Consolidation level and entered as gata no.-2338mi area 0.04 in khata no.- 140.
Thus, currently, the new gata no.- 2337 area 0.09 is a Aabadi gata of class 6. Gata number 2338 mi area 0.86 belongs to Jiyalal son of Ramprasad and gata no.- 2338mi area 0.04 belongs to Gyan Singh son of Bhikhari. Gata no.-1759 area 0.73 comes under new fallow (Harijan Aabadi).
According to the site, in gata no.- 2336, shops are built on site. In gata no.- 2337 mi0 34 37 kadi pucca temple of Hanuman ji is built. In gata no.- 2338, from the western boundary up to a total of 60 kadi long, taking the part of gata 2337 and in the remaining northern boundary of gata 2337 and 2338, there is a kachcha platform which is in the possession of the temple priest. The said possession platform has a peepal tree and government tap and cave. On the eastern side of the temple, there is Aabadi in gata 2337. Thus, in gata no.- 2338, north 5 kadi south 40 kadi west 60 kadi east 70 kadi is in possession as the temple platform in which the western part's 7 kadi width also has a drainage lane. In the middle of gata 2338's kachcha platforms, the idol of Hanuman ji is installed. From the north-eastern corner of gata no.- 2338, in one jarib length and 35 kadi width, a new wall has been built and possession of Bijju son of Bajrang and Titu son of Suraj Bhan is reported. In the southern western corner of gata no.- 2338, approximately 13 kadi 25 kadi pucca foundation has been built and possession of Surendra Singh son of Diwan is reported as per the attached visual map. On site, the remaining part of gata no.- 2338 is lying vacant. Jiyalal does not have possession on site while according to the records, gata no.- 2338 mi area 0.86 belongs to Jiyalal and 2338 mi0 area 0.04 belongs to Gyan Singh. Gata no.-2338 area 0.364 is recorded as new fallow in the tehsil khatauni. Therefore, the joint report (archival and on-site) along with the attached visual map is respectfully submitted for necessary action in your service.
Sd/ Illegible 17.02.17"
16. The respondent No. 3 has laid emphasis on the report dated 08.02.2018 and the amendment chart (Annexure No.CA-18) submitted by the Consolidator to the Consolidation Officer. In the last paragraph, the aforementioned report unequivocally states that new plot no.2337 area 0.09, a Gaon Sabha/Abadi Land of Khata No.1121, emanates from old plot no.3008 area 0.09, which is out of consolidation operation and a temple of GOD Hanumanji exists over there. The Consolidator has prepared the amendment chart in compliance with the order dated 25.02.1989/06.04.1989. However, no land belonging to the petitioners have been indicated to be disturbed either in the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer or in reports dated 17.02.2007 as well as dated 08.02.2018. Upon scrutiny of the records on board, I find no evidence to infer that the petitioners possess a valid right, title and interest over the property in question. Even after a specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he was unable to produce any documentary evidence except the order dated 27.04.1989 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10031 of 1989, whereby a direction was issued to initiate fresh proceedings against Baba Chhote Das by either contesting respondents no.3 & 4 (in said writ petition) or the consolidation authorities. However, said order was modified by the subsequent order dated 19.07.1991. Moreover, in a written statement filed by Baba Chhote Das in O.S. No.335 of 1987, he has pleaded his right and title solely based on adverse possession. It is pertinent to note that although the compromise order dated 25.02.1989/ 06.04.1989 passed by the D.D.C. was challenged in Writ Petition No. 30013 of 1989, the said compromise order was not quashed by this Hon'ble Court. Instead, this court has left it open to the consolidation authorities to examine the possession of Baba Chhote Das.
17. I am sceptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that fresh proceedings ought to have been initiated by the consolidation authorities or by Jiya Lal (father of respondent no.3) and Gyan Singh, in pursuance of the order dated 27.04.1989, to dispossess the petitioners from the plot in question. It is apposite to mention that the order dated 27.4.1989 was clarified by a subsequent order dated 19.07.1991, as quoted in the preceding paragraph, whereby Consolidation authorities were at liberty to proceed with the ongoing proceeding if they could deal with the claim of the petitioners also in that proceeding. The intention of the Hon'ble High Court in its previous order dated 27.04.1989, subsequently clarified by order dated 19.07.1991, is that an opportunity ought to have been accorded to Baba Chhote Das before his dispossession from the plot in question. Order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the D.D.C. in proceedings under Rule 109A of U.P.C.H. Rules, as quoted in preceding paragraphs, evince that Baba Chhote Das had appeared before the D.D.C. and filed an objection against the report submitted by the Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer, having considered the fresh joint report dated 17.02.2007, passed the order dated 10.12.2010 under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules to correct the land revenue entry in favour of Jiya Lal (predecessor-in-interest of respondents no.3 and 4). The aforesaid order dated 10.12.2010 was affirmed by S.O.C., vide order dated 18.04.2013, the appeal having been filed on behalf of Baba Chhote Das. However, misreading and misinterpreting the order dated 18.04.2013, the Consolidation Officer, vide its order dated 19.05.2014, has illegally issued parwana amaldaramad to correct the entries of plot nos. 2337 and 2338. However, this order dated 19.05.2014 issuing parwana amaldaramad has been quashed by the S.O.C. by its order dated 10.08.2006, which was affirmed in revision vide order impugned dated 26.08.2017. While passing the order 26.08.2017, the D.D.C. has also discussed the claim of the petitioners over plot nos. 2338 and 2337, and succinctly observed as to how plot no. 2338 came into existence. The D.D.C. has observed at page no.5 of its order dated 26.08.2017 that in a fresh proceeding, initiated in compliance with the order dated 27.11.1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 3992 of 1980 and the order dated 27.04.1989 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition. 10031 of 1989, and in pursuance of the order dated 06-04-1989 passed by D.D.C. in revision No. 1257, the Consolidation Officer has issued parwana amaldaramad vide order dated 10.12.2010 passed in Case No. 12 under Rule 109 A of U.P.C.H. Rules. In this view of the matter, the petitioners were consistently accorded opportunities to contest the case before all the three consolidation courts (in hierarchy) to establish their right, title and interest over the property in question; however, they failed to do so. Even before this Court, as observed above, they failed to establish their legal right over plot no. 2338, despite the time granted by this Court. Thus, ample opportunity has been accorded to the petitioners after the order dated 27.04.1989 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10031 of 1989. In the given circumstances of the present case, it can safely be concluded that a proper and effective opportunity was accorded to the petitioners, who consistently appeared before the consolidation courts concerned by way of moving appropriate applications and availing statutory remedies of appeal and revision under the U.P.C.H. Act and U.P.C.H. Rules.
18. Needless to say that proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules are akin to execution proceedings for matters that could not be finalised before the completion of consolidation operation, to wit, before de-notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act; and final consolidation record pertaining to the land in dispute could not be prepared owing to pendency of title proceeding/chak allotment proceeding. For ready reference, provisions of Rule 109-A are quoted herein below :
"109A. [ Section 52(2). - (1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub-division, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid.
(2)If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub-rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
(3)Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final.
(4)In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed.]"
19. Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules entrusts a duty upon the authorities concerned, who are treated to be the consolidation authorities under Section 42 of the U.P.C.H. Act, read with Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules, to implement the orders passed by the consolidation authorities under the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, after de-notification of the consolidation operation under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. An order passed by the authority of original jurisdiction under Rule 109-A(1) of UPCH Rules is appealable under Rule 109-A (3) of the U.P.C.H. Rules and thereafter revisable under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. There is no scope for any consolidation authority to examine the right, title and interest of any party over the land falling under the consolidation operations afresh, after de-notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, once the consolidation operation is finalised. It is apposite to mention that during the consolidation operation, to wit, after notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and before de-notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the petitioners, or their predecessor, did not take any appropriate step either under Section 9-A of the U.P.C.H. Act to challenge the entry made in the statement of principles to get their right, title and interest declared over the plot in question, nor under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act to allot the plot in question to their alleged chak. Furthermore, there is no record indicating, as to what chak number had been allotted to the petitioners during the provisional consolidation scheme, which was expected to be affected due to the order passed by the D.D.C. in revision arising out of chak allotment order passed under Section 21(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, or in proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules. Thus, claim of the present petitioners, if any, after denotification of the consolidation operation, under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
20. Assuming arguendo that no separate proceedings have been initiated for dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question, I am of the considered view that, in pursuance of the modified order dated 19.07.1991 passed by this Court, a proper and effective opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the petitioners and their predecessor to establish their right, title and interest over the property in question. Even otherwise, it would be appropriate to observe that under the U.P.C.H. Act, there is no specific provision for the dispossession of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of a plot covered under the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. However, while implementing the orders passed under the U.P.C.H. Act and rules made thereunder, there is a provision for demarcation of the chak and delivery of possession in favour of the chak holders under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, with consequence following under Section 30 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Needless to say that Section 23 of the U.P.C.H. Act pertains to the confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme and the issue of allotment orders. Chapter IV of the U.P.C.H. Act talks about the "Enforcement Of The Scheme", consists of Sections 24 to 33. Additionally, under sub-rule 4 of Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules, there is a provision for the delivery of possession after de-notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, any unauthorised person can be dispossessed or shifted to another plot, as per the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, at the time of delivery of possession in compliance with an order passed by a court competent. In the given circumstances of the present case, new plot no.2338 has been allotted to the chak of the respondent No.3 by the court competent in chak allotment proceeding under Section 21(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, which was culminated in revision decided by the D.D.C., vide order dated 06.04.1989, and said order has been affirmed in Writ Petition No.10031 of 1989 subject to examine the possession of the petitioners over the plot in question. Moreover, the possession of the petitioners over the plot no. 2338 has been examined by the consolidation authorities concerned in compliance with the order dated 27-04-1989, as clarified by order dated 19.07.1991, passed by this Court. After considering the joint report dated 17.2.2007 submitted by Consolidation Lekhpal, Nayab Tahsildar and Consolidation Officer, along with other documents available on record, the land revenue entries are directed to be corrected. As such, it can not be said that proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules have culminated sans an opportunity of hearing accorded to the petitioners in compliance of the orders dated 27.04.1989/19.07.1991 passed by this Court.
21. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the orders passed by the S.O.C. in appeal and the D.D.C. in revision, arising out of proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules. Present petitioners, who have no valid right, title, interest and possession over plot no.2338, have deliberately indulged the contesting respondents in long-drawn litigation since 1988 owing to their greed over the property in question. Since 1988, while Baba Chhote Das was impleaded in the revision pending before the D.D.C., until the culmination of the proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules by order impugned dated 26.08.2017, the petitioners or their predecessor have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim over plot no. 2338 (old plot no. 3015 etc.). According to the joint report dated 17.02.2007 and the report dated 08.02.2018, the structure of temple exists over plot No. 2337 area 0.09 acres, which is an Aabadi. The conduct of the petitioners is deplorable, as they have protracted the lis over the years. There is no illegality, perversity, irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. under question to warrant the indulgence of this court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how petitioners are prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing a miscarriage of justice to them, owing to the orders under challenge.
20. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.
21. However, having regard to the protracted litigation since 1978-79, initiated at the behest of one Gyan Singh for allotment of chak under Section 20(3) of U.P.C.H. Rules, and the continuous struggle of the respondent No. 3, who has been running from pillar to post since then to have the land revenue record corrected and to obtain possession of his allotted land, in pursuance of the orders passed by the consolidation courts, the following directions are issued:-
(i) The concerned Consolidation Authorities are hereby directed to correct and/or mutate the land revenue records and to deliver possession of the plot in question, i.e., 2338 area 0.086 hectare, to the respondent No. 3 (Santosh Kumar s/o Jiya Lal), after duly removing obstacles, if any, and after its demarcation in accordance with the rules, in compliance of the orders dated 25.02.1989/06.04.1989 and 26.08.2017 passed by the D.D.C. under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of submission of an appropriate application by respondent No.3 in this respect, along with a certified copy of this order.
(ii) It is clarified that the appropriate application shall be filed before the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub-division/Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), an officer performing the functions and discharging the duties of Settlement Officer, Consolidation (respondent No. 2 herein), as per rule 109-A(1) of the U.P.C.H. Rules.
(iii) The aforesaid application, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall be registered as a miscellaneous application and taken on record in the previous proceedings under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
October 17, 2025
vinay/vkg/V.R.
