[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Yushuf And Others ... vs Shameem Ahamad And Others on 16 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.2068 (M/S) of 2019
Mohd. Yushuf and others .........Petitioners
Versus
Shameem Ahamad and others .........Respondents
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for
the petitioners.
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Krishan Kant Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra
Barthwal, Advocate for respondent no.3.
None for other respondents despite sufficient service.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have
put to challenge the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018
and 24.05.2019 (Annexure Nos.16 and 20 of the writ
petition) respectively.
2. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the original order dated 16.02.2001 passed
by the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee (East) in Case
No.1210, Atar Singh vs. State, under Section 9A(2) of the
U.P. (Uttarakhand) Consolidation of Land Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Presiding
Officer of the court was Diwan Singh Negi. The said order
dated 16.02.2001 was recalled on the Restoration Application
moved by the respondent-Shameem Ahamad and the matter
was restored to its original number. Subsequently, the 5th
Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, vide judgment and order
dated 25.04.2007 decided the aforesaid case, affirmed the
order dated 16.02.2001 and the objections filed by Atar Singh
S/o Karam Singh and Mohd. Yushuf, were accepted while the
objections filed by Shameem Ahamad S/o Saddiq dated
26.12.2005, 29.03.2006, 27.09.2006 and 14.06.2006 were
rejected.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 25.04.2007 passed by the 5th Consolidation Officer
Roorkee, an appeal was preferred by Shameem Ahamad S/o
Mohd. Saddiq before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
The said appeal was registered as Appeal No.06 of 2017-18.
The said appeal was decided and allowed vide judgment and
order dated 17.04.2018 by the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation), Haridwar Camp at Roorkee. The post of
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was manned on the said
date by the same officer-Diwan Singh Negi, who had earlier
passed the order dated 16.02.2001 in the capacity of
Consolidation Officer. The matter was then taken to revision
by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in a revision which was registered as Revision
No.58/2017-18, Mohd. Yushuf and others vs. Shameem and
others, under Section 48 of the Act. The said revision petition
was dismissed which resulted into filing of the present writ
petition.
4. The first and foremost submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order suffers
from theory of personal bias as Mr. Diwan Singh Negi while
working as a Consolidation Officer, Roorkee has passed the
order dated 16.02.2001 and when that order was set aside in
restoration application moved by the parties, he again heard
the said matter in the capacity of Settlement Officer
(Consolidation), and allowed the appeal by reason of
judgment and order dated 17.04.2018.
5. According to the learned Senior Advocate, this
should not have been done by Mr. Diwan Singh Negi who
was manning the office of the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) on that date.
6. Per contra, Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1 submits that the earlier order
passed by Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, the Consolidation Officer
has already been recalled and the order which was passed on
25.04.2007 was passed by the another Consolidation Officer
and therefore, personal bias would not be attracted.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the view that since the original order dated
16.02.2001 which has been recalled, was the basis of the
entire controversy and the said order was affirmed by the
another officer holding the post of Consolidation Officer vide
order dated 25.04.2007, therefore, it would be in the fitment
of the propriety that Mr. Diwan Singh Negi should keep
himself away from the said appeal, but instead of doing that,
he passed the order dated 17.04.2018 by allowing the appeal
against the order of Consolidation Officer.
8. In such view of the matter, the order passed by the
learned Settlement Officer (Consolidation) cannot sustain
simply for the aforesaid reason and deserves to be quashed.
Moreover, this issue was also raised before the Revisional
Court by the petitioners but the same has not been properly
dealt with by the learned Revisional Court i.e. Deputy
Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Admn.),
Haridwar, while deciding the Revision No.58 of 2017-18
under Section 48 of the Act.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Both
the orders dated 17.04.2018 and 24.05.2019 impugned in this
writ petition are set aside. The matter is remanded to the
Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Haridwar Camp, Roorkee
for deciding the aforesaid appeal afresh in accordance with
law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three
months from today.
10. The aforesaid order has been passed with the
consent of learned counsel for all the parties.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.12.2025
Ravi
