# Bal Kishun v. Chief Revenue Officer & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 1224
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-05
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 18178 of 2009
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bal-kishun-v-chief-revenue-officer-ors-48103
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Allotment of Chak - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section. 48, explanation (3) - Scope -
power under section 48 to examine the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded
by any subordinate authority, and also
includes the power to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence - revisional
Court should examine the point raised in
revision in detail and decide the revision
(Para 13)

Both parties are co-sharer and belongs to same
family as such, both parties are entitled to good
and bad quality of land in the allotment of Chak
proceeding in equal proportion as far as possible
- ACO rightly made the proposal for allotment
to both parties but the same was interfered with
by the CO and SOC - Petitioner deprived of the
Chak of better quality of land as well as in front
of the house - while deciding the revision of the
petitioner DDC has not taken into consideration
the point taken into revision as well as argued
before him - comparative hardship of the
petitioner has also not been taken into
consideration and in the cursory manner
decided the revision - Impugned order quashed
1 All. Bal Kishun Vs. Chief Revenue Officer & Ors.
1225
- dispute remanded back to the DDC to decide
the Revision afresh (Para 11, 12, 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Mahabeer Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Jaunpur & ors. 2005 (99) R.D. 65

## Text

1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the compromise by the Consolidation
Officer and therefore it could not be said
that his order was passed in violation of
principles of natural justice. The Deputy
Director Consolidation further without
adverting to the burden of proof being
discharged first by the claimants and
without any documentary evidence on
record, held that the property in dispute
was ancestral and therefore rightly divided
amongst the co- parceners in accordance
with the undisputed pedigree. The DDC
with regard to pleas raised before him, has
recorded them in detail in his order, but has
dealt with them in a cursory manner
altogether. The findings given by the DDC
have thus become erroneous. The order of
the DDC is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the DDC to consider afresh.

60. In case any transfer has been
made by the respondent nos.4 to 8 during
the currency of interim orders of the
Appellate Court or the Revisional Court
and also of this Court, they shall be
examined
and
notice
to
subsequent
transferees shall be issued and they be
heard also by the DDC before final orders
are passed.

61. The order dated 30.08.2008
passed under Rule 109 are consequential
orders and they are also set aside for the
reasons
that
original
orders
of
the
consolidation authorities have now to be
examined afresh by the DDC in the
Revision which has been remitted by this
Court to be decided afresh.

62. Both the writ petitions stands
disposed of by this common order. It is
expected that the DDC, will decide the
matter afresh within six months from the
receipt of a copy of this order.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1224
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 18178 of 2009

Bal Kishun ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Revenue Officer & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Niraj Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.P. Singh, Sri Anil Kant Tripathi

Civil Law - Allotment of Chak - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section. 48, explanation (3) - Scope -
power under section 48 to examine the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded
by any subordinate authority, and also
includes the power to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence - revisional
Court should examine the point raised in
revision in detail and decide the revision
(Para 13)

Both parties are co-sharer and belongs to same
family as such, both parties are entitled to good
and bad quality of land in the allotment of Chak
proceeding in equal proportion as far as possible
- ACO rightly made the proposal for allotment
to both parties but the same was interfered with
by the CO and SOC - Petitioner deprived of the
Chak of better quality of land as well as in front
of the house - while deciding the revision of the
petitioner DDC has not taken into consideration
the point taken into revision as well as argued
before him - comparative hardship of the
petitioner has also not been taken into
consideration and in the cursory manner
decided the revision - Impugned order quashed
1 All. Bal Kishun Vs. Chief Revenue Officer & Ors.
1225
- dispute remanded back to the DDC to decide
the Revision afresh (Para 11, 12, 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Mahabeer Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Jaunpur & ors. 2005 (99) R.D. 65

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

1. Heard Mr. Niraj Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Singh,
learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed for quashing the impugned order
dated 27.9.2006 passed by respondent no.2
and order dated 24.2.2009 passed by
respondent no.1 in the allotment of Chak
proceedings.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
petitioner is Chak Holder No.154 and
respondent nos. 3 and 4 are Chak Holder
No.156,
both
parties
are
co-sharer
accordingly Assistant Consolidation Officer
proposed Chak to both parties according to
the provisions of the Act specially in
respect to Plot No.36 and 37 as Plot No.36
was not fit for cultivation so both parties
were equally adjusted on Plot No.36 and
37. Against the proposal of Assistant
Consolidation Officer, an objection under
Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by
father of respondent nos.3 and 4 claiming
Chak on Plot No.7. The excess area given
on Ist and IIIrd Chak of respondent nos.3
and 4 be excluded and the same be adjusted
on his original Plot no. 7. The shape of IInd
Chak on Plot No.37 be modified to the
effect that Chak be given on Plot No.37 in
eastern
side
in
North-South
length.
Petitioner also filed objection to the
extant that double entry in respect of Chak
Marg be expunged. The Consolidation
Officer by order dated 27.1.2006 allowed
the objection of respondent no.3 and 4 as
well as of petitioner partly. Against the
order of Consolidation Officer dated
27.1.2006, petitioner and respondent nos.3
and 4 filed their appeals separately under
Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which were
numbered as Appeal No.1178 & 1144
respectively. The Assistant
Settlement
Officer of Consolidation by order dated
12.7.2006 disposed of both the appeals
reducing the Chakout area of Plot No.37/2
from 218 air to 56 air in the eastern side of
abadi. Petitioner was given the Northern
side and respondents were given in
Southern side of the Plot No.37/2. The
Chak allotted at the stage of Consolidation
Officer stage was set aside. Petitioner's
claim for allotment in the western side on
Plot
No.7
taking
into
account
the
petitioner's well, was accepted. The claim
of the respondents in respect of Chak marg
was accepted and Chak marg was given to
him in Northern side. Against the order
dated 12.7.1996, respondent no.4 filed a
restoration application before respondent
no.2 who has allowed the restoration
application by order dated 27.9.2006 and
schedule/chart
was
also
amended
accordingly. Petitioner filed a Revision
No.7, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act
against the order dated 27.9.2006 with the
prayer to set aside the order dated
27.9.2006 and maintain the earlier schedule
dated 12.7.2006 and the stage of Assistant
Consolidation Officer with respect to
allotment be restored in the interest of
justice. Respondent no.1 heard the Revision
No.7 filed by the petitioner but respondent
no.1 by impugned order dated 24.2.2009
1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed the revision without considering
the petitioner's case.

4. The contesting respondent no.4
filed Caveat in the aforementioned writ
petition through Mr. Anil Kant Tripathi,
Advocate and Hon'ble Court heard the writ
petition in presence of counsel for the
parties and passed order dated 15.4.2009
which is as follows:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to make necessary correction in
the array of parties.

This writ petition arises out of chak
allotment proceedings and the dispute is
between real brothers. Petitioner is having
one chak while his two brothers having a
joint chak. During the course of arguments
on the suggestion made by the Court,
learned counsel for the parties state that
their clients are ready to exchange the chak
which will end dispute.

Let this fact be brought on record of the
case on an affidavit to be filed by both the parties
stating that they are ready to exchange the chak
allotted to each other vide amended chart dated
27.1.2006 within one month from today.

List/put up on 18th May, 2009.

Till the next date of listing, effect and
operation of the amended chart dated 27.9.2006
prepared in pursuance to the order of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation shall not be
given effect to."

5. Again on 23.11.2020, following
interim order was passed:-

"On the suggestion made by the Court,
that their clients are ready to exchange their
chak which will end the dispute, this Court
vide order dated 15.04.2009, directed to
bring this fact on record by means of an
affidavit to be filed by both the parties.

Petitioner has filed his affidavit, but
respondent nos.4 and 5 have neither filed
any affidavit nor anyone is present today.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances, interim order passed on
15.04.2009
is
extended
until
further
orders."

6. Respondent no.4 and 5 have not
filed any counter affidavit in the writ
petition
nor
accepted
the
proposal/suggestion made by the Court to
exchange their respective Chak, however,
petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit
accepting the proposal of the Court to
exchange their Chak as both parties are cosharer and belongs to same family.

7. Hence there is no option except to
decide the writ petition on merit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that Assistant Consolidation
Officer has rightly proposed the Chak to
petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5
according to their share but Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation by order dated 27.9.2006
interfered
with
allotment
by
which
respondent nos.4 and 5 have been given
Chak in front of the house of petitioner. It
is further contended that respondent nos.4
and 5 have been given major area on Plot
No.37 and petitioner was given minor part
on Plot No.37, all these points were taken
in grounds of revision before respondent
no.1 as well as very well argued and
pressed but respondent no.1 has illegally
and arbitrarily dismissed the revision filed
by petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further argued that comparative
hardship of the petitioner has not been
taken into consideration at all, as such,
impugned orders are liable to be set aside
1 All. Bal Kishun Vs. Chief Revenue Officer & Ors.
1227
and stage of Assistant Consolidation
Officer be maintained.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 4 and 5, Mr. A.P.
Singh argued that matter relates to
allotment of Chak, both parties are cosharer, equity has been adjusted between
the parties, as such, no interference is
required against impugned orders and writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submission
of learned counsel for the parties.

11. There is no dispute about the fact
that both parties are co-sharer, as such, both
parties are entitled to good and bad quality
of land in the allotment of Chak proceeding
in equal proportion as far as possible. The
Assistant Consolidation Officer has rightly
made the proposal for allotment to both
parties but the same was interfered with by
the Consolidation Officer and Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, hence petitioner
filed the revision, under Section 48 of
U.P.C.H. Act taking specific grounds in his
grounds of revision which are as follows:-

"1. र्ह दक िैसला लार्क अदालत मातहत
स्खलाि कानून है दलहाजा दनरस्त दकर्े जाने र्ोग्य है।

2. र्ह दक आदेश दद० 12.7.06 द्वारा ग०सां०
37/2 में 056 एर्र रकवा चकबांदी बाहर दकर्ा गर्ा
शेष 37/2 में चक सां० 156 दवपक्षीगण को जादनब
ददक्षण तरि से चक सां० 154 को जादनब उत्तर तरि
चक प्रददष्ट दकर्ा गर्ा एवां दोनो चको के बीच से नाली
पूरब पदश्चम आवादी तक प्रददष्ट दकर्ा गर्ा इस प्रकार
दनगरानी कताय गण का चक उत्तर तरि पूरब पदश्चम
एवां दवपक्षीगण का चक ददक्षण तरि पूरब पदश्चम
प्रस्तादवत दकर्ा गर्ा व दोनो चको के बीच से पूरब
पदश्चम नाली ददर्ा गर्ा।

3. र्ह दक आदेश दद० 12.7.06 के दवरूद्ध
दवपक्षीगण द्वारा तजवीजसानी प्रस्तुत की गर्ी दजसमें
तजवीजसानी पर बहस हुई व कहा गर्ा दक
पक्षोां को सुनकर आदेश पाररत दकर्ा गर्ा है
तजवीजसानी बलहीन है दनरस्त दकर्ा जार् लेदकन
सहार्क
बन्दोबस्त
अदधकारी
चकबांदी
ने
तजवीजसानी पर आदेश दद० 12.7.06 बहाल रखते
हुए सांशोधन तादलका पररवदतयत कर ददर्ा पररवदतयत
सांशोधन तादलका के अनुसार दवपक्षीगण का चक
पूरब तरि उत्तर ददक्षण व दनगरानी कताय गण का
चक पदश्चम तरि उत्तर ददक्षण प्रस्तादवत कर ददर्ा
जो आदेश ददनाांक 12.7.06 से टेली नहीां करता है।

4. र्ह दक सांशोधन तादलका दद० 27.9.06 द्वारा
दनगरानी कताय गण के आवादी के सामने दवपक्षीगण
का चक प्रस्तादवत हो गर्ा है अ०सां० 37का
अदधकतम रकवा दवपक्षीगण के चक में प्रस्तादवत हो
गर्ा एवां गस० सां० 37 में कुि रकवा देते हुए
अदधकतम मादलर्त गा० सां० 36 में प्रस्तादवत कर
ददर्ा गर्ा दजससे सांख्या हक तलिी दनगरानी कताय
गण है।

5. र्ह दक गा० सां० 36 खराब दकश्म की िूदम है
स०च०अ० स्तर पर गा० सां० 36 व 37 को दमलाकर
इस तरीके से चक प्रस्तादवत दकर्ा गर्ा दक दोनो पक्षोां
को गा० सां० 36 व 37 में बराबर बराबर मादलर्त
दमला लेदकन चकबांदी अदधकारी महोदर् ने गा०सां०
37 में गलत करीके से 218 एर्र चकबांदी बाहर कर
ददर्ा एवां गा०सां० 37 की अदधकत मादलर्त
दवपक्षीगण के चक में प्रस्तादवत कर ददर्ा एवां
दनगरानी कताय गण का चक गा० सां० 37 में 008 एर्र
व शेष मादलर्त गा० सां० 36 में प्रस्तादवत कर ददर्ा
दजसके बावत अपील प्रस्तुत की गर्ी।

6. र्ह दक आदेश दद० 12.7.06 द्वारा उत्तर
तरि पूरब पदश्चम दन०कताय गण का चक एवां ददक्षण
तरि पूरब पदश्चम दवपक्षीगण का चक प्रस्तादवत
दकर्ा गर्ा इसी अनुसार सांशोधन तादलका िी बनार्ी
गर्ी लेदकन दवपक्षीगण की तजवीजसानी पर पुनः
दद० 17.9.06 को दद० 12.7.06 द्वारा बनार्ी गर्ी
सांशोधन तादलका दनरस्त करके दूसरी सांशोधन
तालीका बना दी गर्ी एवां आदेश दद० 12.7.7.06
बहाल दकर्ा गर्ा। दद० 12.7.06 द्वारा पाररत आदेश
से सांशोधन तादलका दद० 7.9.06 टेली नहीां करती।
इस कारण से सांशोधन तादलका दद० 27.9.06 टेली
नहीां करती इस कारण से सांशोधन तादलका दद०
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27.9.06 दनरस्त दकर्े जाने र्ोग्य एवां आदेश दद०
12.7.06 द्वारा गलत तरीके से जो 056 एर्र रकवा
चकबन्दी बाहर दकर्ा गर्ा है उसकी मादलर्त
लगाकर चक में समर्ोदजत दकर्ा जाना चदहए एवां
मौकानुसार स०च०अ० स्तर का चक ददर्ा जाना
चादहए।

7. र्ह दक पूरब तरि दन०कतायगण का मकान
है उसको ध्यान में रखते हुए स०9अ० स्तर पर चक
प्रस्तादवत दकर्ा गर्ा था उसी अनुसार चक प्रस्तादवत
दकर्ा जाना चादहए।

8. र्ह दक ऐसा प्रतीत होता है दक सहार्क
ब०अदधकारी चकबांदी दकसी नाजार्ज दबाव में
आकर सांशोधन तादलका पररवदतयत दकर्े है। जो
कार्म रहने र्ोग्य नहीां है।"

12. Respondent no.1 while deciding
the revision of the petitioner filed under
Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has not taken
into consideration the point taken into
revision as well as argued before him. The
comparative hardship of the petitioner has
also not been taken into consideration and
in the cursory manner decided the revision
which is against the principle prescribed
under U.P.C.H. Act as well as the law laid
down by the Court. Since the revisional
Court is last Court of fact, as such,
revisional Court should examine the matter
with most care and caution. On the
question of comparative hardship, this
Court in the case of Mahabeer Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and
Others reported in 2005 (99) R.D. 65 has
held that revisional Court should examine
the comparative hardship of both parties in
the allotment of Chak proceedings.

13. It is also noticed that scope of
revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act
by insertion of explanation (3) w.e.f.
10.11.1980 has become wider, as such,
revisional Court should examine the point
raised in revision in detail and decide the
revision, accordingly and this Court expect
most care and attention of the revisional
Court in finalizing the matter. Section 48 of
U.P.C.H. Act is as follows:-

"(1) The Director of Consolidation
may call for and examine the record of any
case decided or proceedings taken by any
subordinate authority for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order other
than an interlocutory order passed by such
authority in the case or proceedings and
may, after allowing the parties concerned
an opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case or proceedings as he
thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may
be
exercised
by
the
Director
of
Consolidation also on a reference under
sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to the
Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of Consolidation for action under subsection (1).

Explanation (1)- For the purposes of
this
section,
Settlement
Officers,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officers,
Assistant
Consolidation
Officers,
Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals
shall be subordinate to the Director of
Consolidation.

Explanation (2) - For the purposes of
this section the expression 'interlocutory
order' in relation to a case or proceeding,
means such order deciding any matter
arising in such case or proceeding or
collateral thereto as does not have the
effect to finally disposing of such case or
proceeding.

Explanation (3) - The power under
this section to examine the correctness,
1 All. Smt. Parvinder Kaur Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko & Ors.
1229
legality or propriety of any order includes
the power to examine any finding, whether
of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate
authority, and also includes the power to
re-appreciate any oral or documentary
evidence."

14. It is also material that allegation
made in the writ petition has not been
controverted by respondent no.4 and 5 by
filing counter affidavit or by filing affidavit in
terms of proposal of the Court to exchange
their Chak in order to end the litigation,
accordingly allegation made in the writ
petition cannot be ignored that petitioner has
been deprived of the Chak of better quality of
land as well as in front of the house.

15. In facts and circumstances of the
case, the impugned revisional order dated
24.2.2009 passed by respondent no.1
(Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) and
order dated 27.9.2006 passed by respondent
no.2 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition)
are quashed and the dispute is remanded
back
to
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the
Revision afresh in the light of the
observation mentioned above after notice
and opportunity of hearing to the parties
preferably within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.

16. The writ petition, accordingly,
stands allowed.
----------

(2022)01ILR A1229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-B No. 1003602 of 2010

Smt. Parvinder Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M.G. Khan, Shamshad Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.M. Shukla, Ashish Chaturvedi, Bidhan
Chandra Rai, Kapil Misra, Manu Dixit, S.P.
Shukla, Satyendra Kumar, Vishal Dixit

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 341,
344(1)(a), & 344(1)(f) - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,1950 -
Rule 285 I - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section
29(2) - As per 29 (2) Limitation Act
provisions contained in section 4 to 24
Limitation Act apply to special or local law
only in so far as, and to the extent to
which, they are not expressly excluded by
special or local law - Applicability of
Limitation Act - As per Section 341 of U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act applies the Limitation Act
to the proceedings held under it - Section
344 (1)(a) of UPZLR Act provides for
framing of rules for imposing time limit,
with or without power to extend such
time limit imposed - Rule 285-I provides
a period of only thirty days for filing
objections against auction sale - Held -
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules, for the
purposes of recovery of sums, recoverable
as arrears of land revenue, is a complete
code in itself, it falls within the category
of special local Act under section 29(2) of
the
Limitation
Act
&
it
specifically
excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to
24 of the Limitation Act (Para 13)

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1950 - Rule 285 I -
Application to set aside auction sale -
Limitation Act, 1950 - Section 5 - Delay
Condonation in filing objection beyond 30