# Jaipal Singh v. D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 1020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41011 of 2014
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaipal-singh-v-d-d-c-muzaffarnagar-ors-42928
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act-Section
11-read with Rule 109 of Consolidation
of Holding Rules-during consolidation
operation Chak carved out with name of
Mr. 'A' after his death-S.O.C. Held 1⁄2
share to each son of deceased Chak
holder-the consolidation officer instead
of implementing the order with 1⁄2 share
to each-started partition by meter and
bounds-held-instead making entry of 1⁄2
share
beyond
that
entire
exercise
without jurisdiction-partition can be only
under 176 U.P.Z. A & L.R. Act-petition
allowed.

Held: Para-9
Therefore, this writ petition is liable to
be
allowed.
The
orders
impugned
deserve
to
be
set
aside.
The
Consolidation Authorities are liable to be
directed to only make an entry in the
relevant revenue records pertaining to
chak no. 293 and record the names of
the parties showing their respective
shares to be 1/2 each therein and any
order
beyond
this
will
be
without
jurisdiction. Thereafter it will be open for
the parties to file a suit for partition for
demarcation of their respective shares
by metes and bounds on the spot before
the competent court.

## Text

1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Km. Pushpa Yadav and another Vs.
State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition
No.67209 of 2013 dated 13.5.2014, the
operative part whereof is extracted herein
below:

"The petitioners, not being a party in
any of the writ petitions filed earlier
challenging the notifications, have already
accepted the initial amount of compensation
under an agreement entered into in terms of
the 1997 Rules and thereafter have also been
given the benefit of payment of additional
compensation of 64.70%, which has been
accepted by them even after the decision in
the case of Har Karan Singh (supra), would
now not be entitled to any such benefit of
being given back the land, which was
acquired under the said notifications.

7. As such the prayer made in this
writ petition does not deserve to be
granted. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed."

8. Following the ratio of the Full
Bench as well as the ratio of the Division
Bench decision, the reliefs prayed for
cannot be granted.

9. The writ petition is misconceived
and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41011 of 2014

Jaipal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar & Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dhirendra Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Karuna Srivastava
Sri Santosh Srivastava

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act-Section
11-read with Rule 109 of Consolidation
of Holding Rules-during consolidation
operation Chak carved out with name of
Mr. 'A' after his death-S.O.C. Held 1⁄2
share to each son of deceased Chak
holder-the consolidation officer instead
of implementing the order with 1⁄2 share
to each-started partition by meter and
bounds-held-instead making entry of 1⁄2
share
beyond
that
entire
exercise
without jurisdiction-partition can be only
under 176 U.P.Z. A & L.R. Act-petition
allowed.

Held: Para-9
Therefore, this writ petition is liable to
be
allowed.
The
orders
impugned
deserve
to
be
set
aside.
The
Consolidation Authorities are liable to be
directed to only make an entry in the
relevant revenue records pertaining to
chak no. 293 and record the names of
the parties showing their respective
shares to be 1/2 each therein and any
order
beyond
this
will
be
without
jurisdiction. Thereafter it will be open for
the parties to file a suit for partition for
demarcation of their respective shares
by metes and bounds on the spot before
the competent court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Bahadur
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Santosh Srivastava, who has filed
caveat on behalf of respondent no. 4, the
sole contesting respondent. With consent
of the parties this petition is being decided
finally without calling for a counter.
2 All]. Jaipal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar & Ors.
1021

2. The facts relevant for deciding the
controversy involved in the writ petition
are as follows:-

3. It appears that during consolidation
operations, a chak was carved out in the
name of one Tika Ram, father of the parties.
It also appears that Tika Ram died and,
thereafter, in title proceedings the shares of
the two brothers the petitioner and the
contesting respondent were held to be 1/2
each by the S.O.C. in an appeal under section
11 (1) of the Act. It further appears that an
application under Rule 109 (A) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holding Rules was filed by
the petitioner for implementation of the order
dated 1.7.2005 passed by the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation granting 1/2 share
each to the parties.

4. Instead of merely recording the
names of the two brothers, the sons of Tika
Ram over the chak no. 293 and further that
each was entitled to half share each therein,
the Consolidation Authorities in proceedings
under Rule 109A proceeded to partition this
chak by metes and bounds. In such partition
by metes and bound, the petitioner appears to
be aggrieved as he is not satisfied by the
portion of the chak no. 293, which has been
allotted in his share.

5. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that the proceedings under Rule 109A
were only for implementing the order
passed in an appeal under section 11 (1)
by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
which granted half share to the parties.
There was no direction for carrying out a
partition by metes and bounds.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has submitted, relying upon
Sub Rule 2 of Rule 109-A, that the
Consolidation Officer has the power to
reallocate affected chaks, after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned and this is what has been done
by the impugned orders.

7. Since proceedings under Rule
109A are in the nature of execution
proceedings, the executing court cannot
go beyond the order that has been passed
or grant relief beyond what has been
granted by the order sought to be
implemented. It is, therefore, clear that
the orders impugned in so far as they
carry out a partition by metes and bounds
are wholly without jurisdiction as no such
order was passed by the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation.

8. Since the parties had been granted
half share in title proceedings and the
consolidation operations had come to a close
by issuance of a notification under section 52
of the Act, the only remedy available to the
parties was to approach the competent court
for partition of their 1/2 share by metes and
bounds. This could have been done by means
of a suit under section 176 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
In my considered opinion, the Consolidation
Authorities in proceedings under Rule 109
(A) were only required to record the names
of the parties along with their respective
shares over the chak no. 293, which had been
carved out in the name of their father and
anything beyond making such entry is
wholly without jurisdiction.

9. Therefore, this writ petition is
liable to be allowed. The orders impugned
deserve to be set aside. The Consolidation
Authorities are liable to be directed to
only make an entry in the relevant
revenue records pertaining to chak no.
293 and record the names of the parties
showing their respective shares to be 1/2
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
each therein and any order beyond this
will be without jurisdiction. Thereafter it
will be open for the parties to file a suit
for partition for demarcation of their
respective shares by metes and bounds on
the spot before the competent court.

10. Accordingly and subject to the
observations/directions above, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned
orders dated 2.5.2014, 23.6.2011 and
14.9.2010 are quashed and the matter is
remanded to the Consolidation Officer to
record the names of the parties over chak
no. 293, showing their share therein to be
1/2 each.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42676 of 2014

Gaurav Pratap Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Kumar

Graduate Medical Education Regulations
1997-Regulation-7(1), 7(5), 7(7)-petitioner
passed
supplementary
examinationseeking direction the principle to treat them
in main batch student without loss of yearheld-unless criteria fixed under regulation
fulfilled-can not be allowed to join second
semester
along
with
main
batch-no
mandamus can be issued against statutepetition dismissed.

Held: Para-12 & 13
12. We are in respectful agreement with
the judgment of the Division Bench. The
judgment of the Division Bench has also
been followed in a judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court by one of us
(Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J) in Arvind Gautam
& 13 Ors., Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2.

13. For these reasons, we are unable to
grant
the
reliefs
sought
in
these
proceedings. If the petitioners have duly
passed the First Professional Examination,
they would necessarily have to abide by the
discipline of the Regulations in so far as the
completion
of
the
requirements
for
appearing at the Second Professional
Examination
are
concerned
and
even
thereafter.

Case Law discussed:
1986 UPLBEC 540; Writ C 20422 of 2009 decided
on 1 September 2009.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. The petitioners appeared for the
medical entrance examination and were
admitted for the MBBS Degree Course at
S.N.
Medical
College,
Agra.
The
petitioners duly completed the first and
the second semester course for the First
Professional
Examination.
The
First
Professional examination was held in the
months of October and November 2013.
When the results were declared on 20
February 2014, each of the petitioners
was declared to have failed in at least one
paper. A supplementary examination was
held between 29 May and 28 June 2014.
The results were declared on 23 July 2014
and it is stated that all the petitioners have
duly passed the examination. The reason
why the petitioners have moved this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution is
that the academic authorities are treating
them as constituting a batch separate from