Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh And 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 ... on 24 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:171845
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 3691 of 2025
Akhilesh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anurag Rai, Rishi Kant Rai, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Santosh Kumar Singh
Court No: - 37
Reserved On:- 12.9.2025
Delivered On:-24.9.2025
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.
2. With the consent of both the parties, the instant writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, without inviting counter affidavit in the matter.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Charan Singh and Ram Sharan Singh were the real brothers. Ram Charan Singh had executed a unregistered will deed in favour of the petitioners on 12.8.1994. The aforementioned Ram Charan Singh was murdered on 18.3.1995. Chak Nos. 766, 768, 770 situated in village Barahpur, Tehsil- Saidpur, Ghazipur were recorded in the name of Ram Charan Singh and Ram Sharan Singh, sons of Kamla Singh. After death of Ram Charan Singh, his real brother Ram Sharan Singh filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") for mutation of his name on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 12.8.1994. The Consolidation Officer allowed the application/objection filed under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act vide order dated 30.7.1995 and directed to record the name of Ram Sharan Singh in place of deceased Ram Charan Singh. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.7.1995, respondent no.4 preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No.175. The aforementioned appeal was heard and allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.7.1997 and the matter was remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh. In pursuance of the remand order dated 29.7.1997, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 25.8.1999 in favour of respondent no.4 in ex parte manner. Ram Sharan Singh filed a restoration application on 13.10.1999 before the Consolidation Officer to recall the order dated 25.8.1999. On the aforementioned restoration application, notice was issued to the other side, accordingly, the matter was heard and restoration application was allowed, restoring the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act on its original number. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.2.2000 decided the case under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act on merit, directing to record the name of Ram Sharan Singh in place of deceased Ram Charan Singh and rejected the objection filed by respondent no.4. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.2.2000, passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no.4 filed a time-barred restoration application on 26.4.2014. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.2.2015, allowed the restoration application dated 26.4.2014 and recalled the order dated 23.2.2000. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 28.2.2015, an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed on behalf of petitioners before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.2016, setting aside the order dated 28.2.2015 and the matter was sent back before the Consolidation Officer. In pursuance of the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.6.2016, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.10.2019 dismissed the restoration application dated 26.4.2014 filed by respondent no.4 as well as delay condonation application. Against the order dated 4.10.2019, passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no.4 filed the appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 29.10.2020 and the matter was remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the case afresh after taking evidence and framing issues. Against the order dated 29.10.2020, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioners have filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3.6.2023, setting aside the orders of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 29.10.2020 and 4.10.2019 passed by the Consolidation officer and remanded the matter to the court of the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application dated 26.4.2014 moved by respondent no.4, taking into consideration the fact of remarriage of respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 filed Writ B No.2551/2023 before this Court which was heard and decided vide judgment dated 20.7.2023, modifying the revisional order dated 3.6.2023 to the extant that matter shall be remitted back to the appellate authority for decision of appeal afresh after hearing both the parties. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.7.2023, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau vide order dated 19.7.2024 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.4, setting aside the orders dated 13.10.2019, 23.2.2000 and 4.10.2019 and remitted the case before the Consolidation Officer, Mau to decide the restoration application dated 13.10.1999 filed by Ram Sharan Singh in accordance with law. Against the order dated 19.7.2014, revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision has been dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2025. In persuance of the remand order passed in appeal the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.8.2025 rejected the restoration application dated 13.10.1999 filed by petitioner's father. Hence, this petition for the following relief:- "Issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Mau, in Case No. 15/2025 (U/s. 12 of U.P. C.H. Act) Sushila Vs Akhilesh and others, order dated 25.08.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Mau in Revision No. 331/393, Akhilesh and others Vs. Sushila Singh and order dated 19.07.2024, passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau, in Appeal No. 1626/1872, Sushila Vs. Akhilesh and others. ii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the Petitioner be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case"
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally allowed the appeal vide order dated 19.7.2024, setting aside the order dated 13.10.1999/23.2.2000/4.10.2019, passed by the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally revived the order dated 25.8.1999. He further submitted that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not consider the evidence as well as the issue as to whether respondent no.4/Sushila Singh after remarriage, is entitled to get succession in the property of pre-deceased husband. He submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not exercised the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act in proper manner. He submitted that the order dated 23.2.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer should be maintained as the Consolidation Officer has framed the issues and afforded opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He submitted that the appeal against the order dated 23.2.2000 was filed after 14 years, as such, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.2.2000 cannot be set aside on the basis of highly time-barred appeal filed respondent no.4. He submitted that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 27.8.2025 in ex parte manner, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that there is no illegality in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by which the matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to consider the restoration application dated 13.10.1999 filed by Ram Sharan Singh. He further submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in proper manner. He submitted that the claim of respondent no.4 cannot be negated on the technical grounds. He submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the Consolidation Officer has decided the matter vide order dated 27.8.2025 which is appellable/revisable before the consolidation court, as such, the writ petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act has been decided by the Consolidation Officer. There is also no dispute about the fact that the restoration application has been filed by the parties and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under the impugned order dated 19.7.2024 remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer to consider the restoration application filed by the Ram Sharan Singh. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned revisional order. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.8.2025 rejected the restoration application filed by the petitioners' father.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the family pedigree which is mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition would be relevant which is as under:-
Kamla Singh
_______________________|__________________
| |
Ram Charan Singh Ram Saran Singh
| _____________|____________
Sushila Devi | | |
| Akhilesh Singh Abhishek Singh Kiran Singh
Remarried
(Ranjeet Singh)
Accused of the murder of
Ram Charan Singh
9. The perusal of the three issues framed before the Consolidation Officer as mentioned in the order dated 23.2.2000 will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-
"???????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ????????? ????? ??? ???
1--???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?
2-???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?
3-???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?"
10. Father of petitioners, namely, Ram Sharan Singh claimed right on the basis of will-deed executed by Ram Charan Singh. Respondent no.4/Sushila Singh is claiming right as widow of deceased. The Consolidation Officer exercised the jurisdiction on 25.8.1999, 23.2.2000. Vide 1st order dated 25.8.1999, name of respondent no.4/Sushila Singh was ordered to be recorded in place of deceased Ram Charan Singh and vide subsequent order, name of petitioners' father Ram Sharan Singh was ordered to be recorded in place of Ram Charan Singh. After the order of the Consolidation Officer, a highly time-barred appeal has been filed by respondent no.4, which has been decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, remanding the matter from one court to other and the parties are still litigating before the consolidation authorities.
11. The perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation passed from time to time, demonstrate that there is no proper consideration and adjudication of the dispute as to who should be recorded on the place of Ram Charan Singh, as such, interest of justice requires that the Consolidation Officer should decide the dispute under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act afresh, after framing additional issues, if any, in addition to the three issues already framed in the earlier order dated 23.2.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
12. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation under the impugned order dated 19.7.2024 has remitted the matter before the Consolidation Officer to consider the restoration application dated 13.10.1999 filed by Ram Sharan which is not proper exercise of jurisdiction. It is also material to mention that the Consolidation Officer under the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has rejected the restoration application dated 13.10.1999 filed by petitioners' father, resulting into maintaining the order dated 25.8.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer without framing any issues and there is no adjudication of dispute under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act.
13. So far as alternative remedy against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.8.2025 is concerned, the order dated 27.8.2025 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner, as such, the alternative remedy will not be bar for petitioner to challenge the order of Consolidation Officer before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.8.2025 is set aside. The order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 19.7.2024 as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.8.2025 are set aside/modified to the extent that the Consolidation Officer shall decide the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act afresh, framing proper issues in the proceeding and affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law.
15. The writ petition is allowed in part and the matter is remitted back before the Consolidation officer to register the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act on its original number and frame proper issue as well as afford opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. Till the disposal of the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, the parties shall maintain status quo and no third party interest shall be created by the parties to the proceeding in respect to the plot in question.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 24, 2025
C.Prakash
