Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 25 Others on 18 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:167669
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 2973 of 2025
Rajesh Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 25 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Rajendra Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
WRIT - B No. - 3516 of 2025
Sanjay Yadav And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 24 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Bhola Nath Yadav, Brajesh Shukla
Counsel for the respondent(S): Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Rajendra Kumar
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate in person in Writ-B No.2973 of 2025, Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav & Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B No.3516 of 2025, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 in Writ- B No.2973 of 2025 & Writ-B No.3516 of 2025, Mr. Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos.27 in Writ-B No.2973 of 2025 & respondent no.26 in Writ-B No.3516 of 2025, Mr. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.7 in Writ-B No.2973 of 2025 & Writ-B No.3516 of 2025, Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in both the writ petitions & Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha in both the writ petitions.
2. Both the writ petitions have filed against the same impugned orders, as such, both the writ petition are dubbed and heard together.
3. Brief facts of the case are that village-Noorpur Mubarapur, Pargana & Tahsil- Sadar, District- Ghazipur has been notified under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in the year 2008 and notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act was published on 28.6.2011. Consolidation Committee prepared the statement of principle. Chak carvation proceeding was started and notification was published, accordingly, under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act. Certain objections were filed by the tenure holders which were decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.8.2010 by the aforesaid order, the chak of the chak holder no.101/ Smt. Jagdeiya was disturbed. Smt. Jagdeiya filed a time barred objection under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act claiming the chak on plot no.216 as well as the alternative claim was made to allot chak on plot no.216 and 220. The chak objection filed by the chak holder no.101 was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.12.2011. Chak holder no.101/ Smt. Jagdeiya filed a recall application to recall the order dated 30.8.2010. The recall application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, accordingly, the appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was registered as appeal no.172. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.12.2011 decide the appeal filed by Smt. Jagdeiya. Smt. Jagdeiya again filed time barred recall application against the appellate order. Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed the appeal as well as restoration application filed by Smt. Jagdeiya vide order dated 10.10.2023. Udaybhan Yadav & Suresh Yadav son of Ram Subhag filed two revisions before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.6.2025 decided the revision under the impugned order. Hence Writ-B Nos.2973 of 2025 & 3516 of 2025 for the following relief:
"issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record of the case and quash the impugned order dated 30.6.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, District- Ghazipur in Revision No.413 of 2023, Computerized Case No.202354142900000413 (Udaybhan and others vs. Amrish and others) and Revision No.202354142900000414 (Udaybhan vs. Shiv Shankar and others), under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Annexed as Annexure No.12).
4. In Writ-B No.2973 of 2025 following order was passed on 31.7.2025 by this Court:-
"1. Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate / petitioner-in-person, Shri Indrasen Singh Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha (respondent no.4).
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur in Revision No.413 of 2023, Computer Case No.202354142900000413 (Udaybhan and others v. Amrish and others) and Revision No.202354142900000414 (Udaybhan v. Shiv Shankar and others) under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
3. Precisely, the contention of the petitioners is that by means of the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.3) has removed the existing chak marg connecting the village and the main road and proposed a new chak marg. The said order is not sustainable in law being de hore of the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and is illegal and without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consolidation proceeding in the village has been finalized and notification under Section 52(1) has been issued on 28.06.2011 and even chak road has been prepared under the scheme of Manrega and the same is being used by the petitioners for going to their houses constructed in Abadi area.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed two days' time to seek instructions in the matter.
6. Put up this case as fresh on 05.08.2025 before the appropriate Bench."
5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 31.7.2025 State has filed his instruction dated 2.8.2025, which is on record.
6. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate in person in Writ-B No.2973 of 2025, Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav & Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B No.3516 of 2025 submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law as in the allotment proceeding relief which has been granted cannot be sustained. He further submitted that no objection against the statement of principle was filed at proper stage of consolidation operation, as such, impugned order should be set aside. They further submitted that this Court in the case reported in 2024 (8) ADJ 193 (LB), Consolidation Committee and Another vs. D.D.C. Faizabad and Another has held that if no objection has been filed against the statement of principle prepared under Section 8-A of the Act then the bar under Section 11-A of the Act would operate. They further submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Consolidation Committee (supra), the impugned orders should be set aside.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos.27 & 26 in Writ-B No.2973 of 2025 & Writ-B No.3516 of 2025, Mr. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents & Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha in both the writ petitions submitted that there is no illegality in the revisional order as the tenure holders of the village in question have been given chak road to reach their agriculture plots. They further submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. They further submitted that both the writ petitions should be dismissed.
8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that village was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 2008 and the chak objection has been filed at the late stage of consolidation operation. There is also no dispute about the fact that no objection under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by anyone.
10. Under the U.P.C.H. Act, full procedure has been prescribed for filing objection against the statement principle, chak, title etc.
11. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant, which is as under:
"9B. [ Disposal of objections on the Statement of Principles. -(1) Where objections have been filed against the Statement of Principles under Section 9, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the views of the Consolidation Committee, submit his report to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed.
(2) Where no objections have been filed against the Statement of Principles within the time provided therefor under Section 9, the Consolidation Officer shall, with a view to examining its correctness, make local inspection of the unit, after giving due notice to the Consolidation Committee, and may thereafter make such modifications or alterations in the Statement of Principles as he may consider necessary.3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), may, within 21 days of the date of the order; file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final.
4) The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall, before deciding an objection or an appeal, make local inspection of the unit after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee.] [Added by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963.]"
12. Perusal of Paragraph 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the judgement rendered by this Court in Consolidation Committee (supra) will be relevant, which are as under:
"19. For coming to conclusion, it would be relevant to take note of the facts of the case of the Chandrka Rai (supra). In this case, chak road was not provided to one Rishikesh, who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the said petition and on publication of provisional consolidation scheme, he filed objection under Section 20 of the Act of 1953, wherein, he demanded the facility of chak road and the said objection was rejected. Thereafter, an appeal was filed, in which, the S.O.C. concerned provided chak road and thereafter, the order of S.O.C. was upheld by the D.D.C. Thus, on facts, this judgment would be of no help to the petitioners.
20. From the above quoted paragraphs of the judgment passed in the case of Sunder Lal (supra), it is apparent that the bar created by Section 11-A of the Act of 1953 would operate in respect of an individual tenure holder in order to attach the finality to the proceedings at the relevant stage and the said bar would not operate in a case where there has been large scale illegalities and irregularities committed by the Subordinate Consolidation Staffs in determining the valuation and preparation of Statement of Principles and in this view of the matter, this court opined that the orders passed by the competent authorities under the Act of 1953 are justified and therefore dismissed the petition.
21. The judgment passed in the case of Punvasi (supra) specifically indicates that if no objection is filed against the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act of 1953 then in that eventuality the bar under Section 11-A of the Act of 1953 would operate.
22. Considering the law enunciated aforesaid as also the undisputed fact that the petitioner no.1 as also the petitioner no.2, being the original tenure holder of Gata No. 387, failed to file objection(s) in terms of Section 9-B of the Act of 1953 and also that the pleadings/ allegation pertaining to large scale illegalities and irregularities committed by the Subordinate Consolidation Staffs in determining the valuation and preparation of Statement of Principles are missing, this Court is of the view that the bar under Section 11-A of the Act of 1953 would be attracted in the instant case and as such, the findings/ observations of the D.D.C. in the impugned order that the C.O. and/ or S.O.C. were not having power to cause interference in the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act of 1953 are justified. Accordingly, this Court finds no force in this petition."
13. It is material to mention that in the instant matter the chak objections were decided vide order dated 30.8.2010/ 29.12.2011. Recall application and chak appeal filed by predecessor of respondents were dismissed ultimately on 10.10.2023 but chak revision has been allowed under the impugned order disturbing the chak as well as chak road, which is not proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction in allotment of chak proceeding.
14. It is further material to mention that in the instant matter, no objection under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed, as such, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act disturbing the chak road of the village is abuse of process of law.
15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 30.6.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur in Revision No.413 of 2023, Computerized Case No.202354142900000413 (Udaybhan and others vs. Amrish and others) and Revision No.202354142900000414 (Udaybhan vs. Shiv Shankar and others), under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
16. Both the writ petitions are allowed.
17. No order as to costs.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 18, 2025
Rameez
