Arvind Kumar Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Pilibhit and Another

Reserved on 26.5.2025 Delivered on 31.7.2025 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 43115 of 2008 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Pilibhit And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- T.S. Dabas,Shyam Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Pathak,Rakesh Pathak Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 151/1 is a big plot having area 0.364 hectare. Out of the aforementioned area of plot No. 151/1 an area of 0.012 hectare was acquired for construction of assam road. The remaining area of plot No. 151/1 area measuring 0.190 hectare has been purchased by the petitioner through two registered sale deeds dated

26.6.2002 and 5.10.1999, plot No. 151/2 area 0.162 hectare was purchased by respondent no.2 on 22.7.2002. Petitioner filed an application before Settlement Officer of Consolidation Pilibheet under Section 5-C (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act with the prayer that petitioner be allowed to construct house over the plot. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.10.2004 allowed the petitioner's application with the condition that plot should be levelled and construction should be completed within two months. Proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was initiated which was registered as case No. 91 of 2004-05 State Vs. Bal Krishna Gupta. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.6.2006 decided the aforementioned objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act rejecting the claim of petitioner and changed the situated of plot. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.6.2006, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as appeal No. 196/ 366. Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated

7.6.2006 passed by Consolidation Officer and maintained the earlier sub-division of plot No. 151. Against the appellate order dated 27.7.2007, respondent no.2 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as revision No. 53/238. Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the aforementioned revision and allowed the same setting aside the appellate order dated 27.7.2007 and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.6.2006. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of case and quashing the order dated

25.7.2008 of respondent no.1.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to proceed the case in accordance with law."

¶3This Court entertained the matter on 22.8.2008 and granted interim protection to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the disputed plot.

¶4In pursuance of the order dated 22.8.2008, parties have exchanged their pleadings.

¶5Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No. 151/2 was sold to respondent no.2 which contains a tubewell/ boring while plot No. 151/1 was adjacent to road but does not contain any tubewell/ boring. He further submitted that plot No. 151/2 is away from the road but revisional Court has failed to consider the aforementioned aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order setting aside the appellate order. He further submitted that revisional Court has set aside the appellate order without assigning sufficient reason. He submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed the order after making spot inspection but Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation without making any spot inspection in the matter. He submitted that orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer are wholly illegal and the appellate order has been passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in proper manner, as such, the impugned revisional order should be set aside.

¶6On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 submitted that sub-division of plot No. 151 was not rightly made accordingly Consolidation Officer has exercised the jurisdiction under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H Act making sub-division of plot No. 151 which was proper exercise of jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally interfered with the order of Consolidation Officer, as such, revisional Court has rightly set aside the appellate order and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer. He submitted that Consolidation Officer has rightly adjudicated that adjacent to roadside 1/3rd part of plot No. 151 belong to petitioner and remaining 2/3rd plot belong to respondent no.2. He submitted that proper reason was assigned by Consolidation Officer in making sub-division of plot No. 151 taking the interest of petitioner as well as respondent no.2 into consideration. He submitted that the inspection alleged to be made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal was totally ex-parte, as such, the same cannot be made basis by Appellate Court to allow the appeal filed by petitioner. He further submitted that after the order dated

13.7.2004 passed by Assistant Collector in Stamp case No. 79 of 2004-05, there is no much relevance of recital in the sale deed with respect to situation of plot nearby roadside. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered all the evidence available on record as such, there is no illegality in the impugned revisional order.

¶7I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶8There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner and respondent no.2 are vendees of plot No. 151 by way of registered sale deed. There is also no dispute about the fact that sale deed of both the parties have not been challenged in any Court of law. There is also no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, sub-division of plot No. 151 has been made by the Consolidation Officer but in appeal, the order of Consolidation officer has been set aside and earlier sub-division was maintained. There is also no dispute about the fact that Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of respondent no.2 setting aside the appellate order and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer regarding sub-division.

¶9In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the issues framed before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which are as under:- "1.

वववववदतगवटवससखयव151

ममबटटवकसपकवरअसवकतवकयटजवनटचववहए?

2.

वववववदतगवटवससखयव151

परववदद-

पवतववददशदबवलककषणगगपवतथवअरवबनदकगमवर

सससहवकसवकसपकवरकववबजहह?"

¶10The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer while deciding the aforementioned issues will also be relevant which is as under:- "ददोनदो पकኘ᭎ कट दवरव पतववलद पर उपलब्ध करवयट सवቌኚयኘ᭎ तथव बहस सगननट कट बवद मम इस वनश्करर पर पहहसचव हहूሺ वकबहनवमव रसजस्टटद ससखयव 9053

वदनवसक05.10.99

जदोवनमरलसससहव

परमपदतसससहवतस्वदरसससहपगतगणसरदवरबवबवसससहदवरवगवटवससखयव151 वम0 रकवव

वड०कव2/3

भवगअरवबनदकगमवरसससहपगतछगटवनसससहकदोबटचवतथव0.47

वड०कव

भवगजववहदअलदपगतअब्दगलहमददकदोबटचवसजसममरकववरवषटदयरवजमवगरपरनहदोनव

असवकतहह।सजसकवउलटखबहनवममकटपकषससखयव3

परअसवकतहहतथवबहनवमवससखयव5150

वदनवसक26.06.02

कदोजववहदअलदपगतअब्दगलहमददवन०फफलखवनवदवरवगवटवससखयव 151 वम0 0.47

वड०कव1/3

भवगअरवबनदकगमवरसससहपगतछगटवनसससहवनववसदपदलदभदत

कटहकममवकयवहहममगवटवससखयव151

वम०रकवव0.47 वड0 कट1/3

भवगकदोरदोडपरहदोनट

कटकवरण50

पवतशतबढवकरस्टवमपफफसअदवकरददहहकवउलटखहह।शदबवलककषणगगपव

दवरवरसजस्टटदबहनवमवससखयव6167 / 22.07.02

कदोकरवयवगयवसजसपरसबरसजस्टटवर

पदलदभदतकफररपदोटरवदनवसक15.06.04

कटआधवरपरअपरकलटकटर(वव०/रव०) पदलदभदत

कटववदससखयव79/04-05

दवरवपवररतआदटशममगवटवससखयव151

वम०जदोशदबवलककषण

गगपवदवरवकयकफगयदथद,

रवषटदयरवजमवगरपरहदोनटकटकवरण92450

स्टवमपकमदजमव

करनटकवआदटशवकयवगयव।सजसपरशदगगपवदवरवटटजरदचवलवनसटरपयव10,815.00

वदनवसक15.07.04

कदोजमवकरवदयवगयव।उपरदोकसटयहससदहदोतवहहवकशदअरवबनद

कगमवरसससहदवरवजदोभभवमवनमरलसससहआवदसटगवटवससखयव151

वम०रकवव0.47 वड0 कव

भवगकयकफथदवहबहनवममकटअनगसवररवषटदयरवजमवगरपरनहहथद।शदबवलककषणगगपव

दवरवजदोभभवमगवटवससखयव151

वम०0.40

वड०बहनवमवदवरवकयकफथदउसपररवषटदय

रवजमवगरकवअवतररकस्टवमपशगलकअदववकयवथवजबवकअरवबनदकगमवरसससहदवरजदो

भभवमगवटवससखयव151

वम०रकवव0.47

वड०कव1/3

भवगजववहदअलदसटकयकफथद

उसपरहदरवषटदयरवजमवगरपरहदोनटकटकवरणअवतररकस्टवमपशगलकवदयवगयव।इसपकवर

शदअरवबनदकगमवरसससहगवटवससखयव151 वम0

कटपभरबममरवषटदयरवजमवगरपरकगलफनटकव

भवगकटहकदवरहहशटर2/3

भवगवपछलटभवगममहहतथवशदबवलककषणगगपवगवटवससखयव 151 म0

कटरवषटदयरवजमवगरकटकगलफनटकट2/3

भवगकटवहस्सटदवरहह।उपरदोककटअनगसवर

बटवससशदोधनवकयवजवनवनयवयदोवचतपतदतहदोतवहह। आदटश

गवमपकवडयवननगववएत०कटगवटवससखयव151

कगलरकवव0.364

हट०कटस्थवनपररवषटदय

रवजमवगरकफतरफ2/3

फनटलटतटहहएगवटवससखयव151/1

रकवव0.170 हट0

पशश्चममम

असवकतहदो,

सजसपरखवतवससखयव184

ममरकवव0.162 हट0

तथवगवटवससखयव466 मम

रकवव0.008 हट0

असवकतहदोशटरपभरबमम1/3

फनटलटतटहहएनवसकसजतगवटवससखयव151/1

कटपभरबऔरदवकणओरगवटवससखयव151/2

रकवव0.194 हट0

असवकतहदोसजसममखवतव

ससखयव466

रकवव0.004

हट०तथवखवतवससखयव149

ममरकवव0.190 हट0

असवकतहदो।

तदनगसवरभभवचततथवजदोतचकबनददआकवरपत2

कससशदोसधतवकयवजवयट।

पतववलदववदअमलदरवमददवसखलदफतरहदो।

वदनवसक07.06.2006

हस्तवकरअपठनदय

चकबनददअसधकवरद पदलदभदत"

¶11The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer as quoted above fully demonstrate that the interest of petitioner as well as private respondents has properly been taken into consideration while making sub-division of plot No. 151 and holding that in what manner petitioner and private respondents are in possession. Consolidation Officer has taken into consideration the evidences adduced by the parties. The mandatory provisions contained under Rule 26(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules was complied with by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal filed by petitioner has set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and maintained the sub-division of plot No. 151 as mentioned in C.H. Form 2-Ka. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act has examined the entire issue and has held that Consolidation Officer has rightly exercised the jurisdiction. Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded the finding of fact that bandobasti map of 1366 fasli which is on record demonstrate that plot No. 151 belonging to Baldev Raj is adjacent to road which proves that plot belonging to respondent no.2, Bal Krishna Gupta is situated adjacent to road (National Highway).

¶12Considering the finding recorded by consolidation authorities, there is no illegality in the judgement passed by Consolidation Officer which has been maintained in revision.

¶13Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned revisional order dated 25.7.2008 passed by respondent no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pilibhit.

¶14The writ petition is dismissed.

¶15No order as to costs. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Vandana Y. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad