# Ajay Kumar Singhal v. D.D.C. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 832
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-18
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 1552 of 2020
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-singhal-v-d-d-c-ors-opp-parties-53655
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Mr. Tarun Gaur, S.C., Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Deputy Director
of Consolidation could legally disturb the
petitioner's Chak, allotted on plot no. 258, in a
highly time-barred proceeding initiated under
SS. 9-A (2) and 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953, after delivery of
possession and final notification under S. 52.

Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(U.P. C.H. Act) - SS. 4, 9-A (2), 21(1), 52 -
Consolidation
proceedings
-
Chak
allotment - Disturbance of Chak at a late
stage on time-barred objection - Once
proceedings
under
S.
9-A(2)
attain
finality, the same issue cannot be reagitated under S. 21(1) - allotment of
Chak proceeding cannot be initiated at
any time during consolidation operation
on the ground that plot in question is the
original road-side plot of the tenure holder
concerned, especially when no proper
objection was filed within the limitation.
Held: Once the relief for declaring plot no.258
as Chak Out under S. 9-A (2) had been refused
by the consolidation authorities and the said
order maintained by the High Court in Writ-B
No.42518 of 2015, the consolidation authorities
had no jurisdiction to subsequently declare any
area of the said plot as Chak Out in a Chak
allotment proceeding - Entire procedure adopted
under S. 21(1), without condonation of delay
and after notification under Section 52, was
illegal - Impugned orders dated 18.11.2020
(Deputy Director of Consolidation), 8.6.2015
(Settlement Officer of Consolidation), and
13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015 (Consolidation Officer)
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are
accordingly set aside - Petition allowed - No
order as to costs.(Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Writ-B
No.42518
of
2015
(decided
on
31.7.2015) (regarding refusal to declare plot no.
258 as Chak out under S.9-A (2) of the U.P.
C.H. Act).

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953

List of Keywords
Time-barred objection - Chak allotment - Chak
out - declaration under Section 9-A (2) - finality
of
proceedings
-
Deputy
Director
of
7 All. Ajay Kumar Singhal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
833
Consolidation - Consolidation Officer - abuse of
process of law - notification under Section 52 -
road-side plot.

Case Arising From
Revision No. 161/201793131600004 decided by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor,
vide order dated 18.11.2020 under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Shukla

Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Tarun Gaur, Standing Counsel
Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai

## Text

832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
protected as well as now they could not
take benefit of Rules of 1991.

22. Court also takes note of 'Rules of
2003' and 'Rules of 2009' as discussed in
Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) wherein
Supreme Court has upheld judgment given
by Learned Single Judge that petitioners
therein were before respondents before
Rules of 2003 came into force, therefore,
its benefit was granted whereas in present
case, as referred above, petitioners were
sleeping for a very long period, therefore,
adverse effect of Act of 2009 would
definitely fall upon them.

23.

Considering
overall
circumstances, this Court does not find any
ground to grant relief to petitioners.

24. Accordingly, all writ petitions are
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 832
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 1552 of 2020

Ajay Kumar Singhal ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Mr. Tarun Gaur, S.C., Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Deputy Director
of Consolidation could legally disturb the
petitioner's Chak, allotted on plot no. 258, in a
highly time-barred proceeding initiated under
SS. 9-A (2) and 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953, after delivery of
possession and final notification under S. 52.

Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(U.P. C.H. Act) - SS. 4, 9-A (2), 21(1), 52 -
Consolidation
proceedings
-
Chak
allotment - Disturbance of Chak at a late
stage on time-barred objection - Once
proceedings
under
S.
9-A(2)
attain
finality, the same issue cannot be reagitated under S. 21(1) - allotment of
Chak proceeding cannot be initiated at
any time during consolidation operation
on the ground that plot in question is the
original road-side plot of the tenure holder
concerned, especially when no proper
objection was filed within the limitation.
Held: Once the relief for declaring plot no.258
as Chak Out under S. 9-A (2) had been refused
by the consolidation authorities and the said
order maintained by the High Court in Writ-B
No.42518 of 2015, the consolidation authorities
had no jurisdiction to subsequently declare any
area of the said plot as Chak Out in a Chak
allotment proceeding - Entire procedure adopted
under S. 21(1), without condonation of delay
and after notification under Section 52, was
illegal - Impugned orders dated 18.11.2020
(Deputy Director of Consolidation), 8.6.2015
(Settlement Officer of Consolidation), and
13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015 (Consolidation Officer)
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are
accordingly set aside - Petition allowed - No
order as to costs.(Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Writ-B
No.42518
of
2015
(decided
on
31.7.2015) (regarding refusal to declare plot no.
258 as Chak out under S.9-A (2) of the U.P.
C.H. Act).

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953

List of Keywords
Time-barred objection - Chak allotment - Chak
out - declaration under Section 9-A (2) - finality
of
proceedings
-
Deputy
Director
of
7 All. Ajay Kumar Singhal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
833
Consolidation - Consolidation Officer - abuse of
process of law - notification under Section 52 -
road-side plot.

Case Arising From
Revision No. 161/201793131600004 decided by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor,
vide order dated 18.11.2020 under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Shukla

Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Tarun Gaur, Standing Counsel
Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur,
learned standing counsel for the staterespondents and Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
Village Girdawa Shahanpur, Pargana and
Tehsil Nazibabad, District Bijnor was
notified under Section 4 of the Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.
C.H. Act") on 16.8.1992. The petitioner is
chak holder no.63 and original holding of
the petitioner is 95/1, etc. (total area .388
hect.). The petitioner was proposed chak on
plot no. 258, area .293 hect. Respondent
nos. 4 & 5 are chak holder no.466. The
original holding of respondent nos. 4 & 5
are plot no.258, etc., area 3.688 hect.
Respondent nos. 4 & 5 were allotted single
chak on plot no.258, etc., area 3.650 etc. A
time-barred objection under Section 9-A(2)
of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by
respondent nos. 4 & 5 for declaring the plot
no.258 as chak out. Consolidation Officer
vide order dated 28.5.2010 excluded the
plot
no.258,
area
3.650 hect.
from
consolidation scheme. Against the order
dated
28.5.2010
passed
by
the
Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed 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.522
of
2010-11.
The
aforementioned appeal was heard and
allowed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation vide order dated 15.12.2010.
The delivery of possession of the village in
question
including
the
chak
of
the
petitioner, was taken place on 25.5.2011.
Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed a time-barred
restoration application to recall the order
dated 15.12.2010 which was rejected by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide
order dated 23.1.2015. Respondent nos. 4
& 5 challenged the order dated 15.12.2010
by way of revision under Section 48 of the
U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.
The
aforementioned
revision was heard and dismissed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 18.6.2015. Respondent nos. 4
& 5 filed a Writ Petition No.42518 of 2015
before this Court which was dismissed vide
order dated 31.7.2015. Respondent nos. 4
& 5 filed two time-barred objection under
Section 21(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. The
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
25.3.2015 allowed the objection and area
.100 hect. was excluded from consolidation
scheme, affecting the chak of the petitioner,
without condoning the long delay in filing
the chak objection. Petitioner filed a
restoration
application
before
the
Consolidation Officer against the order
dated 25.3.2015 which was rejected vide
order dated 13.4.2015. Against the orders
dated 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015, petitioner
filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of the
U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation which was heard and
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed vide order dated 8.6.2015. The
revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H.
Act filed by the petitioner against the
orders passed by the Consolidation Officer
and
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation, was registered as Revision
No.486 before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.
The
aforementioned
revision was heard and allowed vide order
dated 18.6.2015, setting aside the orders
dated
8.6.2015,
25.3.2015,
13.4.2015.
Respondent nos. 4 & 5 initiated time-barred
proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the
U.P. C.H. Act for excluding the plot nos.
95/1 & 95/2 from consolidation scheme.
The
aforementioned
proceeding/timebarred objection was dismissed by the
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
1.10.2015. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed
recall application to recall the order dated
18.6.2015 which was allowed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 29.8.2017, setting aside the
order dated 18.6.2015 and restoring the
revision on its original number. The
petitioner
filed
Writ
Petition
No.53362/2017 before this Court against
the order dated 29.8.2017 which was
initially entertained but later on the writ
petition was dismissed vide order dated
1.5.2018. The village in question was
notified under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H.
Act on 8.2.2018. The transfer application
filed on behalf of the petitioner to transfer
the proceeding of pending revision, was
rejected by the Collector vide order dated
4.11.2020.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation vide order dated 18.11.2020
dismissed the petitioners revision. Hence,
this writ petition for the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature nature of
certiorari to quash the order dated
18.11.2020 passed by respondent no.1 in
Revision No.161/201793131600004 and
affirm the order dated 18.6.2015 and
further quash the order dated 8.6.2015
passed
by
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation in Appeal No.255 and
order dated 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015
passed by Consolidation Officer in Case
No.191 in proceeding under Section 21(1)
of the U.P. C.H. Act.

(ii) Issue any suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under
the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. This Court vide order dated
18.12.2020, directed
the
counsel
for
respondent to file counter affidavit. In
pursuance of the order of this court dated
18.12.2020, affidavits exchanged between
the parties.

4.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has illegally dismissed the
petitioner's revision, without considering
the fact that chak of the petitioner cannot
be disturbed at such a late stage of
consolidation proceeding, on the basis of
highly time-barred proceeding initiated by
respondent nos. 4 & 5. He further
submitted that revision has been decided
without summoning the records of the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the
Consolidation Officer. He further submitted
that proceeding under Section 9 of the U.P.
C.H. Act for declaring the plot no.258 as
C.H. 18 was decided upto the High court
and the same has attained finality, as such,
on the basis of subsequent time-barred chak
allotment
proceeding,
initiated
by
respondent nos. 4 & 5, the plot no.258
cannot be declared as chak out. He further
submitted that petitioner was proposed
chak on plot no.258 and at that time, the
land was very up and down condition. He
7 All. Ajay Kumar Singhal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
835
submitted that delivery of possession was
affected in the year 2011, accordingly,
petitioner has developed his plot and
village in question has been notified under
Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act in the year
2018, as such, the impugned order,
affecting the chak of the petitioner is
wholly illegal. He further submitted that the
Consolidation Officer has passed the order
on the application of contesting respondent
under Section 21(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act
which was highly time-barred, but without
condoning
the
delay
in
filing
the
proceeding, the Consolidation Officer has
passed the order dated 25.3.2015, affecting
the chak of the petitioner. He further
submitted that chak was allotted to
petitioner on plot no.258 after mandatory
deduction made in the chak of the
contesting respondent and chak of the
contesting respondent was already allotted,
adjacent to the road, as such, the
petitioner's chak cannot be affected on the
basis of highly time-barred proceeding
initiated by the contesting respondent. He
submitted that the impugned orders passed
by the consolidation authorities should be
set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 4 & 5 submitted that no
interference
is
required
against
the
impugned
orders
passed
by
the
consolidation
authorities.
He
further
submitted that plot no.258 is situated on
national highway and respondent nos. 4 &
5 are the original tenure holders of the
aforementioned plot. He further submitted
that plot nos. 95/1, 95/2 and 828 are the original
holdings of the petitioner. He submitted that
petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(2) of
the U.P. C.H. Act against the order passed by
the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed
after affording opportunity of hearing to both
the parties, holding that the Consolidation
Officer has rightly allotted chak to petitioner
and respondent nos. 4 & 5 vide order dated
25.3.2015. He further submitted that revision
filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed
under the impugned order. He further submitted
that respondent nos. 4 & 5 were under urgent
need of money, accordingly, executed the sale
deed dated 11.4.2016 of old plot no.258, area
188.20 sq. mtr. in favour of Sanjay Singh and
handed over possession to him. He submitted
that no interference is required against the
impugned order and the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.

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
plot nos. 256 & 258 are the original plots of
respondent nos. 4 & 5. There is also no dispute
about the fact that plot no. 95/1, etc. are the
original plots of the petitioner. There is also no
dispute about the fact that petitioner was
proposed chak on plot no. 258 which has been
disturbed under the impugned order on the basis
of
time-barred
proceeding
initiated
by
respondent nos. 4 & 5. There is also no dispute
about the fact that earlier proceeding initiated at
the instance of respondent nos. 4 & 5 under
Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act for
declaring the plot no. 258 as C.H. 18 was
dismissed and order has attained finality.

8. It is relevant to mention that village in
question was notified under Section 4 of the
U.P. C.H. Act on 16.8.1992, delivery of
possession in the village in question has taken
place on 25.5.2011 and notification under
Section 52 of the U.P. C.H. Act in respect
to the village in question has taken place on
8.2.2018.

9. It is also relevant to mention that
proceeding for declaring the plot no. 258 as
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.H. 18 was finalized, refusing the relief to
respondent nos. 4 & 5 to declare the entire
area of plot no.258 as chak out, by
dismissing the Writ B No.42518/2015 vide
order dated 31.7.2015. The perusal of the
order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Court
in Writ B No.42518 of 2015 will be
relevant which is quoted hereunder:-

"Heard Sri Rajeev Sisodia for
the petitioners and Sri Brajesh Shukla
for respondent-3.

The writ petition has been filed
against the orders of Settlement Officer,
Consolidation dated
15.12.2010
and
Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
18.6.2015 passed in the proceeding under
Section 9-B as well as chak allotment
proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953.

Plot nos. 256 and 258 were the
original holding of the petitioners, which
situates on the road side. Initially, the
entire area of plot no.256 was left as
chak out and the entire area of plot
no.258 i.e. 3.650 hectare was valued.
Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed
a single chak to the petitioners on plot
no.258 in which an area of 0.004 hectare
of plot no.259 and an area of 0.189
hectare of plot no.261 were also included.
However, the Consolidation Officer by
order dated 28.8.2010 excluded the area
of plot nos.259 and 261 from the chak of
the petitioners and its valuation of plot
258 has been allotted in plot no.258.
Thus, from the stage of Consolidation
Officer a single chak has been carved out
to the petitioner on plot no.258. One
Ajay Kumar Singhal has filed an appeal
from the order of Consolidation Officer
as earlier some area of plot no.258 was
allotted in his chak but the Consolidation
Officer had taken away that area from
his
chak.
The
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation by order dated 15.12.2010
allowed the appeal of Ajay Kumar
Singhal and the valuation as it was
determined
from
the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
has
been
maintained. The petitioners filed a
revision against the aforesaid order,
which has been dismissed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation by order dated
18.6.2015 but while dismissing the
revision
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
has
observed
that
valuation of plot no.256 was also rightly
determined. This observation of Deputy
Director of Consolidation is uncalled for
as the entire area of plot no.256 has been
left as chak out and its valuation has not
been determined from any stage. Hence ,
this writ petition has been filed.

I
have
considered
the
arguments of the counsel for the
petitioners.

The observation of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation in respect of
plot no.256 is based on conjectures and
surmises as the entire area of plot no.256
was left as chak out. So far as plot no.258
is concerned the chak of the petitioners
has been allotted on plot no.258 . Since
plot no.258 is a very big plot having area
3.650 hectare as such it is not possible to
left the entire area of this plot as chak
out. However, it is not denied that plot in
dispute is a road side land but the chak
of the petitioners has been allotted on
this plot itself. Thus, absolutely, no
prejudice has been caused to the
petitioners.

With the aforesaid observation
the writ petition is disposed of."

10. It will also be relevant to mention
that after finalization of the proceeding
initiated under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.
C.H. Act in respect to plot no.258,
7 All. Waqf No. 19 Dahgah Sahrif & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
837
respondent nos. 4 & 5 initiated proceeding
under Section 21(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act
which has been entertained and allowed,
declaring 0.100 hect. area of plot no.258M
as chak out as well as disturbing the chak
of the petitioner by taking out the area from
plot no.258M and allotting him chak on
plot no.828, 261, 259, 258. The allotment
of chak proceeding cannot be initiated at
any time during consolidation operation on
the ground that plot in question is the
original road-side plot of the tenure holder
concerned. It is correct that road-side plot
is to be allotted to the original tenure holder
but if no proper objection has been filed by
the original tenure holder within the
limitation as provided under the U.P. C.H.
Act, the consolidation will be otherwise.
The case of the petitioner is that the surface
of plot no.258 at the time of allotment to
petitioner was in uneven/irregular condition
and petitioner has developed the same, as
such, the highly time-barred proceeding
initiated by respondent nos. 4 & 5 is
nothing but abuse of process of law.

11. It is also relevant to mention that
once the relief for declaring the plot no.258
as C.H. 18 under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.
C.H. Act has been refused by the
consolidation authorities and order has
been maintained by this court, then the
consolidation authorities cannot declare the
area of plot no.258 as C.H. 18 in the
allotment
of
chak
proceeding.
The
procedure prescribed under the U.P. C.H.
Act is to be followed in proper manner
otherwise the entire proceeding will be
vitiated.

12. It is also material to mention that
this Court while deciding Writ B No.42518
of 2015 filed by respondent nos. 4 & 5,
arising out of proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has taken into
consideration the claim of respondent nos.
4 & 5 to declare that plot no.258 as C.H. 18
and held that plot no.258 has been rightly
refused to be declared as C.H. 18.

13. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
orders
dated
18.11.2020,
passed
by
respondent
no.1/Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Bijnor; 8.6.2015, passed by
the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in
Appeal No.255; 13.4.2015 and 25.3.2015
passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case
No.191 cannot be sustained in the eye of
law which are liable to be set aside and the
same are hereby set aside.

14. The writ petition stands allowed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 837
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 4426 of 2025
Along with other connected cases

Waqf No. 19 Dahgah Sahrif & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Syed Husain

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the validity of the District
Magistrate's order dated 26.04.2025 declining
permission for organizing the Annual Jeth Mela