# Bhoora Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 12
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-29
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 3320 of 2024
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhoora-singh-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-ors-52431
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act - Section 9-B, Disposal of objections
on the Statement of Principles - S. 9-B (3),
Any person aggrieved by an order of the
Consolidation Officer under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) may file an appeal
before
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation, whose decision, except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act,
shall be final - Issue : Whether Revision
u/s 48 maintainable against order Section
9-B (3) or not? Held: Phrase "except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act"
means that the litigant can resort to the
remedy in case the same is available
under the Act and the rules or regulations
made therein - Intention of legislation is
that the order passed by the S.O.C. in
appeal may be assailed in the revisional
jurisdiction of the D.D.C., who has been
entrusted ample power to examine the
correctness, legality, or propriety of any
order, including the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, returned
by the Consolidation Officer or the S.O.C.,
and
also
includes
the
power
to
reappreciate any oral or documentary
evidence (Para 7)
8 All. Bhoora Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
13
Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. There is no quarrel by the
plaintiffs that the suit property is land
within the meaning of Section 4(14) of the
Revenue
Code,
which
is
used
for
agriculture and recorded as such. It is after
all held by the plaintiffs and the defendant
for purposes connected with agriculture. If
then that is the plaintiffs' case, a suit by
them to establish their right as co-tenure
holders against the defendant, would
clearly be in the teeth of Item No.16 of the
Second Schedule to the Revenue Code read
with Section 206 (2) (a). The plaintiffs'
relief, howsoever quaintly drafted, does not
take it out of mischief of Section 206 (2)
(a) read with Item No.16 of the Second
Schedule to the Revenue Code. The
jurisdiction to try a suit of this kind would,
therefore, on a bare reading of the plaint,
lie exclusively in the Revenue Court. If the
plaintiffs were to seek any meaningful
relief, they would have to seek a decree for
division of their holdings/ the suit property,
which
again
would
be
exclusively
cognizable by the Revenue Court under
Section 116 of the Revenue Code. As the
relief stands, if at all it can be granted, it is
by the Revenue Court and not the Civil
Court. Quite apart, the terms, in which the
relief has been sought, read together with
the cause of action involved in this suit, the
relief can never be granted by any Court, as
remarked earlier for the reasons indicated.

20. In the considered opinion of this
Court, therefore, the learned Additional
District Judge was absolutely right in
setting aside the ad interim injunction
granted by the Trial Court. No exception
can be taken to the impugned order by the
plaintiffs, which must in our opinion be
unhesitatingly upheld.

21. In the result, this petition fails and
is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 3320 of 2024

Bhoora Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Devendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act - Section 9-B, Disposal of objections
on the Statement of Principles - S. 9-B (3),
Any person aggrieved by an order of the
Consolidation Officer under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) may file an appeal
before
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation, whose decision, except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act,
shall be final - Issue : Whether Revision
u/s 48 maintainable against order Section
9-B (3) or not? Held: Phrase "except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act"
means that the litigant can resort to the
remedy in case the same is available
under the Act and the rules or regulations
made therein - Intention of legislation is
that the order passed by the S.O.C. in
appeal may be assailed in the revisional
jurisdiction of the D.D.C., who has been
entrusted ample power to examine the
correctness, legality, or propriety of any
order, including the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, returned
by the Consolidation Officer or the S.O.C.,
and
also
includes
the
power
to
reappreciate any oral or documentary
evidence (Para 7)
8 All. Bhoora Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
13
Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondents as well
as learned
counsel for Gaon Sabha.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case and the
order proposed to be passed hereunder, this
Court proceeds to decide the instant writ
petition finally, with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties who are present in
the Court, without calling for their
respective affidavits.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the
order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation (in
brevity 'D.D.C.') whereby revision filed on
behalf of the petitioner, arising out of
proceeding under Section 9-B of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity
'U.P.C.H. Act'), has been dismissed on the
ground of maintainability.

4.

Having
considered
the
rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perusal of record, it is
manifested that the question involved in the
instant writ petition lies in a narrow compass as
to whether revision under section 48 of
U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner assailing
the order passed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') under
Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act is maintainable
or not. D.D.C. has held that order passed by
S.O.C. under section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act is
final order on the merits of case, thus, revision
against said order is not maintainable.

5. Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act
denotes the provision wherein any person
aggrieved with the statement of principles
prepared under Section 8-A of U.P.C.H.
Act has legal right to challenge the same by
moving an objection under Section 9-B(1)
of U.P.C.H. Act. Sub section 2 discuss the
situation where no objection has been filed
against
the
statement
of
principles,
however, the Consolidation Officer on his
own wisdom, in case, comes to conclusion
that there is need to examine the
correctness of statement of principles, he
shall make local inspection of the unit and
pass appropriate order after due notice to
the Consolidation Committee. Section 9B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act gives statutory right
to the aggrieved person to file an appeal
against the order passed under sub section 1
and 2 of Section 9-B. For ready reference
Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act is quoted
herein below :-

"9-B. Disposal of objections on
the Statement of Principles.-

(1) Where objections have been
filed against the Statement of Principles
under
Section
9,
the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
shall,
after
affording opportunity of being heard to
the parties concerned and after taking into
consideration
the
views
of
the
Consolidation
Committee,
submit his
report to the Consolidation Officer, who
shall dispose of the objections in the
manner prescribed.

(2) Where no objections have
been filed against the Statement of
Principles
within
the
time
provided
therefor
under
Section
9,
the
Consolidation Officer shall, with a view to
examining its correctness, make local
inspection of the unit, after giving due
notice to the Consolidation Committee,
and
may
thereafter
make
such
modifications
or
alterations
in
the
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Statement of Principles as he may
consider necessary.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the Consolidation Officer under
sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), may,
within 21 days of the date of the order, file
an appeal before the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation, whose decision, except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act,
shall be final.

(4) The Consolidation Officer
and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
shall, before deciding an objection or an
appeal, make local inspection of the unit
after giving due notice to the parties
concerned
and
the
Consolidation
Committee.)"

6. Language employed under sub
section 3 of Section 9-B unequivocally
enunciates that the order passed by the
appellate court shall be final "except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act".
The D.D.C., in his own wisdom, has
misread and misinterpreted the aforesaid
phrased and comes to conclusion that order
passed by the S.O.C. became final and
aggrieved person has no option to resort to
the remedy of filing revision under section
48 of U.P.C.H. Act.

7. The phrase "except as otherwise
provided by or under this Act" indicates
that order passed by S.O.C. is generally
final, however, same is subject to any
exceptions or further recourse that may be
specified within the Act itself or under any
rules, regulations, or notifications issued
under the Act. Thus, this finality is not
absolute
and
this
section
effectively
provides an exception. The U.P.C.H. Act
includes provisions that allow for further
recourse or exceptions to this finality;
specifically as enunciated under section 48
of U.P.C.H. Act. Needless to say that
similar phrase has been used by the
legislation under Section 11 (1), where
provision of filing an appeal arising out of
proceeding under Section 9-A of U.P.C.H.
Act has been given, and under Section
21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which enunciates
resorting to remedy of filing an appeal
assailing the order passed under section 21
(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Intention of legislation
in all these sections is abundantly clear that
order passed by the S.O.C. in appeal may
be assailed in the revisional jurisdiction of
the D.D.C. who has been entrusted ample
power to examine the correctness, legality
or proprietory of any order includes the
power to examine any finding, whether of
fact or law, returned by the Consolidation
Officer or the S.O.C., and also includes the
power
to
re-appreciate
any
oral
or
documentary evidence, as enunciated under
Explanation 3 to Section 48 of U.P.C.H.
Act. Needless to say that the Assistant
Consolidation
Officer,
Consolidation
Officer and the S.O.C. are subordinate to
the D.D.C./Director of Consolidation, as
enunciated under Explanation 1 to Section
48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, the remedy to
file a revision is a right of the litigant which
is provided under the Statute and the same
cannot be curtailed by any authority on his
own whims. It appears that the D.D.C. has
failed to understand the phrase "except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act"
which means that the litigant can resort to
the remedy in case same is available under
the Act and the rules or regulations made
there in.

8. In this conspectus, as above, I am
of the considered view that the D.D.C. has
failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction
so vested in him by law. He has misread
and
misinterpreted
the
provision
as
enunciated
under
Section
9-B(3)
of
U.P.C.H. Act on his own whims and
8 All. Chandra Raj @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
15
against the very intention of the legislation.
As such, instant writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2024 passed
by the D.D.C. is hereby quashed. Revision
no.0008 of 2024 filed on behalf of Bhoora
Singh (petitioner herein) is restored to its
original number and the parties are
relegated before the D.D.C. to get the
revision decided afresh on merits. It is
expected that the D.D.C. shall decide the
revision
in
accordance
with
law,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 15
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8192 of 2024
And
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8751 of 2024

Chandra Raj @ Chandra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prashant
Shukla,
Mahendra
Singh
Chaodhary

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Bail - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - S.ection 439 - The
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- 14-A(2) - An appeal shall lie to the High
Court against an order of the Special Court
granting or refusing bail - Sessions Court/
Special Courts constituted under the
SC/ST Act is duly and well empowered to
consider the offences against the accused
even under IPC. Once the Special Court
constituted under the Act is empowered to
take cognizance and to try offences
together, all the rigors of the SC/ST Act
would apply.
B. Criminal Law - Bail - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - The
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- 14-A(2) - FIR under sections 328, 376D, 506 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) 2 of SC/ST
Act was lodged - Subsequently, chargesheet was filed, in which, the applicant
was charged for an offence under Sections
328, 376D, 506 IPC only and was not
charged under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act - applicant preferred a bail application,
which came to be dismissed by the Special
Court against which, the bail application
before High Court u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. was
filed - Held : An appeal under Section 14-A
(2)
of
the
SC/ST
Act
would
be
maintainable against an order rejecting
the bail application by the Special Court.
(Para 21)

B. Criminal Law - Bail - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - The
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act,
1989 - 14-A(2) - FIR under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34
IPC lodged. Subsequently, sections of
SC/ST Act was also added, however, as
against the applicants only charges
under IPC was framed and not under
SC/ST
Act.
Applicants
filed

bail
applications before the Special Court
which was rejected against which, the
Bail Application was filed under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on
bail Held : An appeal under Section 14-A
(2)
of
the
SC/ST
Act
would
be
maintainable against an order rejecting
the bail application by the Special Court.
(Para 21)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ghulam Rasool Khan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2022 (8) ADJ 691