Allahabad High Court
Parmanand Singh vs State Of U.P. And 11 Others on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188579
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4246 of 2025
Parmanand Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 11 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prem Narayan Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 6-Gram Panchayat.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Gram Sabha, the instant writ-petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act, entry of the petitioner has been expunged without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. A time barred appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs;-
"(i). Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2007 passed by respondent no.3, order dated 28.04.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent no. 3.
(ii). Any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii). Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Consolidation Officer has expunged the petitioners' entry in illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that no notice and opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by Consolidation Officer. He further placed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in order to demonstrate that proceeding has been conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Rules. He further placed the order sheet of the Consolidation Officer, which is annexed as annexure no. 3 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate that matter has been decided by Consolidation Officer in illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that proceeding initiated under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act is not maintainable, as such impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that appellate Court and Revisional Court have also decided the matter in arbitrary manner, as such all the three orders should be set aside and petitioners' entry in respect to the plot in question be maintained as existing before passing the order of Consolidation Officer.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that in view of the earlier entry of the plot in question and order passed by Consolidation Officer no right will accrue in favour of the petitioner, as such there is no illegality in order passed by Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was highly time barred, as such there was no illegality in the appellate order passed by Settlement Officer which has been maintained in revision. He next submitted that no interference is required against the impugned judgment passed by Consolidation Authorities.
6. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer has expunged the petitioners' entry and the order of Consolidation Officer has been maintained in appeal as well as revision by Settlement Officer of Consolidation/Deputy Director of Consolidation.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Rule 26 sub clause 2 of the U.P.C.H. Rules will be relevant, which is as under:-
"26. (2) On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections."
9. This Court in the judgment reported in 2015 (127) RD 163 Bansraj and Others Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others has held that provisions of Rule-26 (2) of U.P.CH. Rules are mandatory. Paragraph no. 10 of the Judgment rendered in Bansraj (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-
"10. There was a separate appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.01.2014 as such he was competent to examine legality and propriety of the order of Consolidation Officer on merit. Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded a finding that Consolidation objection does not pay any vital role. Consolidation Officer has to observe the procedure as provided under Rule 26 (2), which provides for framing issues after hearing the parties and record evidence both oral and documentary and decide the dispute. Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the reasons and findings recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and held that the petitioners were given proper opportunity to adduce evidence but they failed to adduce any evidence."
10. The order passed by Consolidation Officer demonstrates that Rule 26 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Rules has not been followed before expunging the petitioners' entry. The record further demonstrate that on the basis of report, the order impugned has been passed by Consolidation Officer, which is not proper exercise of jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer.
11. Since, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, as such there was delay in filing appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 by the petitioners. The appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and the order has been maintained by the Revisional Court.
12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned dated 31.12.2007 passed by respondent no. 5-Consolidation Officer, impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed by respondent no.4-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varansi and impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent no. 3-Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
13. The writ-petition stands allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before the respondent no.5-Consolidation Officer to decide the matter under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act afresh, in the light of observation made in the body of judgment, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that petitioner can raise the question of maintainability of the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, which shall be considered by Consolidation Officer in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
October 28, 2025
Neetu
