# Rajeshwari Devi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 498
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-22
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 47925 of 2014
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeshwari-devi-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-shahjahanpur-ors-52883
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Consolidation proceedings -
Effect of denotification of village under
Section
52
of
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Objection under
Section
20
of
the
Act
filed
after
denotification - Held, not maintainable
unless filed with prayer for condonation of
delay and shown to be recorded in
Misilband - Mere delay in registering or
misplacement of objection not fatal where
filed
prior
to
denotification
and
substantiated through evidence - Record
showed respondent's plot adjacent to
National Highway had commercial value -
Declaration of such plot as C.H. 18 found
valid - No interference warranted in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. (Paras 11 to
16)
HELD:
There is no dispute about the fact that village in
question was brought under the Consolidation
and notification under Section 20 of U.P. C.H.
Act was published on 24.03.2023, notification
under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was published
on 27.03.2003, notification under Section 52 of
U.P.C.H. Act published on 27.06.2007. There is
also no dispute about the fact that Consolidation
Officer vide order dated 26.02.2009 granted
benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act in the
proceeding under Section 21 of U.PC.H Act and
vide order dated 27.05.2009 declared plot
No.454/525 area 0.049 hectare as C.H. 18.
There is also no dispute about the fact that in
revision No.42 filed by respondent no.4 (Lata
Devi) plot No.455 was also declared C.H.18.
(para 11)

It is material to mention that plot N.454/525,
455 are situated adjacent to N.H. 24 and
objection was filed on behalf of respondent no.4
(Lata Devi) along with prayer for condonation of
delay before denotification of the village as such
there is no illegality in the order passed by the
Consolidation authorities for declaring the plot
No.454/525 area 0.049 hectare as well as plot
No.455 area 0.543 hectare as C.H. 18. The
entry in Misil Band also demonstrate that
objection was filed by Lata Devi before
denotification of the village. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation while deciding every revision
has rightly considered the claim of the parties
and dismissed the revisions filed by respective
parties except revision NO.48 filed by Lata Devi.
(Para 12)

This Court in the case reported in 1985 RD 71
Paras Nath Singh versus Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors. has held that an order
which is illegal cannot be quashed or set aside
in Writ jurisdiction if quashing of it results in
bringing on record another illegal order. (Para
15)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be
one to enforce a legal right.

13. In fact, the existence of such
right, is the foundation of the exercise of the
said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right
that can be enforced must ordinarily be the
right of the appellant himself, who complains of
infraction of such right and approaches the
Court for relief as regards the same.

14. Further, a "legal right", means
an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it
may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit
conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The
expression, "person aggrieved" does not
include a person who suffers from a
psychological or an imaginary injury; a person
aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one,
whose right or interest has been adversely
affected or jeopardised."

19. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel controverting the arguments of Shri
Somesh Khare submits that the complaint as
also the instant writ petition is maintainable as
in respect of the public property of Gaon Sabha
any one can initiate the proceedings or
challenge the order settling such land of the
Gaon Sabha with private persons. Regards may
be had to the co-ordinate Bench decision in the
case of Ram Ziyawan and Others Vs.
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur and Others
reported in 2014 (124) RD 219. Further in
Nathai Lal Dube Vs. District Magistrate,
Sant Ravidas Nagar reported in 2000 (4)
AWC 2752 it has been held that a writ petition
by a member of a Gaon Sabha raising
allegations against the action of the Gaon Sabha
in allotting land in violation of the norms can
be assailed before a writ Court.

20. In the opinion of the Court, under
normal circumstances a complainant may not be
entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as he cannot be
judged as a person aggrieved. However, the locus
of a person to maintain a writ petition before the
High Court has to be judged in the context of the
statutory provisions and the facts of the case.
There cannot be any hard and fast rule that in all
cases a complainant cannot maintain a writ
petition. In the case at hand, the Court finds that
the allotment of the land by the Land
Management Committee in favour of the
Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 was in complete
violation of the Rules of allotment prescribed. The
Respondent Nos. 4 to 150 obtained allotment in
their favour by misstatement of facts. This Court
cannot shut its eye to the aforesaid facts. In the
opinion of the Court there is a public element
involved and the complaint as also the instant writ
petition is maintainable. The Question No. (d) is
decided accordingly.

21. In view of the above, the impugned
orders
dated
03.11.2000
and
08.05.2003
(Annexure Nos. 3 & 5) respectively, passed by the
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, are set
aside.

22. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 498
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 47925 of 2014
With
Writ-B No. 8596 of 2015

Rajeshwari Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation,
Shahjahanpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.C. Singh
1 All. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur & Ors.
499
Counsel for the Respondents:
Amit Kumar Singh, Hmb Sinha, Jitendra
Kumar Chakraborty, Ram Kishore Pandey,
Umesh Vats

Civil Law - Consolidation proceedings -
Effect of denotification of village under
Section
52
of
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Objection under
Section
20
of
the
Act
filed
after
denotification - Held, not maintainable
unless filed with prayer for condonation of
delay and shown to be recorded in
Misilband - Mere delay in registering or
misplacement of objection not fatal where
filed
prior
to
denotification
and
substantiated through evidence - Record
showed respondent's plot adjacent to
National Highway had commercial value -
Declaration of such plot as C.H. 18 found
valid - No interference warranted in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. (Paras 11 to
16)
HELD:
There is no dispute about the fact that village in
question was brought under the Consolidation
and notification under Section 20 of U.P. C.H.
Act was published on 24.03.2023, notification
under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was published
on 27.03.2003, notification under Section 52 of
U.P.C.H. Act published on 27.06.2007. There is
also no dispute about the fact that Consolidation
Officer vide order dated 26.02.2009 granted
benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act in the
proceeding under Section 21 of U.PC.H Act and
vide order dated 27.05.2009 declared plot
No.454/525 area 0.049 hectare as C.H. 18.
There is also no dispute about the fact that in
revision No.42 filed by respondent no.4 (Lata
Devi) plot No.455 was also declared C.H.18.
(para 11)

It is material to mention that plot N.454/525,
455 are situated adjacent to N.H. 24 and
objection was filed on behalf of respondent no.4
(Lata Devi) along with prayer for condonation of
delay before denotification of the village as such
there is no illegality in the order passed by the
Consolidation authorities for declaring the plot
No.454/525 area 0.049 hectare as well as plot
No.455 area 0.543 hectare as C.H. 18. The
entry in Misil Band also demonstrate that
objection was filed by Lata Devi before
denotification of the village. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation while deciding every revision
has rightly considered the claim of the parties
and dismissed the revisions filed by respective
parties except revision NO.48 filed by Lata Devi.
(Para 12)

This Court in the case reported in 1985 RD 71
Paras Nath Singh versus Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors. has held that an order
which is illegal cannot be quashed or set aside
in Writ jurisdiction if quashing of it results in
bringing on record another illegal order. (Para
15)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 319 [Civil
Appeal No.8216 of 2003 with Civil Appeal
No.8217 of 2003 (Ram Chandrra Singh vs.
Savitri Devi & ors.)]

2. (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581 [Civil
Appeal No.2087 of 2000 (United India Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs Rajendra Singh & ors.)] with [Civil
Appeal No.2088 of 2000 (United India Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Singh & ors.)]

3. 1985 RD 71 Paras Nath Singh versus Deputy
Director of Consolidation & ors.

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

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan
Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri V.P. Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
the
contesting
respondent no. 4 and Sri Hasan Abbas,
learned Standing Counsel for the State in
Writ B No.47925 of 2014.

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.K.
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
the
contesting
respondent no. 5 and Sri Hasan Abbas,
learned Standing Counsel for the State in
Writ B No.8596 of 2015.

2. Since Common issues are involved
in both the writ petitions hence both the
writ petitions are clubbed and heard
together and writ petition No.47925 of
2014 shall be treated as a leading petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
Village-Bhedpur Pergana-Jamaur, TehsilSadar, District-Shahjahanpur came under
operation
of
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act,1953 hereinafter referred to
as "the U.P.C.H. Act"). Statement of
principles prepared under Section 8 (A) of
the U.P. C.H. Act was published in the year
2004. According to respondent No.4 (Lata
Devi) an objection under Section 20 of the
U.P.C.H. Act was filed in the year 2005,
which was registered as case No.9/299 in
which several dates were fixed till 2007,
but after 2007, file of aforesaid case was
misplaced accordingly respondent No.4
filed second objection on 24.11.2008.
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
27.05.2009 declared plot No.454/525 as
C.H.18 (out side Consolidation operation)
but no order was passed in respect to the
plot No.455. According to respondent
No.4 (Lata Devi) she purchased plot
No.455 area 0.543 hectare and 454/525
area 0.049 total area 0.592 hectare from
Smt. Vibbo Devi and others. Aforesaid plot
No.455 and 454/525 were situated to the
adjacent of N.H.24 Bareilly-Shahjahanpur
road. According to respondent No.4 (Lata
Devi) her name was mutated in the revenue
record on the basis of sale deed executed in
her favour in respect to aforementioned
plots. Respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) is chak
holder No.274. The plot No.454/425 was
proposed in the chak of the petitioner
(Rajeswari Devi), accordingly respondent
No.4 (Lata Devi) has filed her chak
objection in the year 2005, but petitioner
(Rajeshwari Devi) denying the fact of filing
chak objection in the year 2005. According
to petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) upon
publication of notification, no objection
was filed by respondent no.4 (Lata Devi)
under Section-9 (B) of U.P. C.H. Act, as
such in view of the provisions contained
under Section 11 (A) of U.P.C.H. Act, the
claim of respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) is
barred . Petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) is
chak holder No.277. According to
petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) provisional
consolidation
Scheme
prepared
by
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
was
confirmed
by
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation and chak holders of the
village in question were put into possession
over their respective chaks. The final
records under Section 27 of the U.P.C.H.
Act were prepared and the village was
denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.
Act on 27.06.2007. According to petitioner
(Rejeshwari
Devi)
no
objection
was
registered and fought between the parties
under Section 9 (B) of 20 of U.PC.H. Act
as such no claim can be raised after
denotification of the village in question on
27.06.2007.
Against
the
order
dated
27.05.2009 petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi)
filed two separate appeals one against the
order dated 27.05.2009 under Section 21
(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and another against the
order dated 24.06.2009 passed under Rule
109-A of the U.P.Consolidation of
Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred
to as "the U.P.C.H. Rules"). The
aforementioned appeals were registered as
appeal No.3/113 and 27. The Settlement
Officer of Consolidation vide order dated
04.07.2011 dismissed the appeal No.3/113,
1 All. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur & Ors.
501
but appeal No.27 was allowed setting side the
order dated 24.06.2009. Against the order of
Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated
04.07.2011 passed in Appeal No.3/ 113.
Petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi) filed a revision
under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before
Deputy Director of Consolidation which was
registered as revision No. 83 of 2011. Against
the
order
of
Settlement
officer
of
Consolidation dated 04.07.2011 passed in
appeal No.27, petitioner (Rajeshwari Devi)
filed revision under Section 48 of U .P.C.H.
Act which was registered as revision No.86.
Respondent No. 4 (Lata Devi) had also filed
two revisions against the order of Settlement
Officer of Consolidation dated 04.07.2011,
which was registered as revision No.42 and
18 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H Act. All the
aforementioned
four
revisions
were
consolidated and heard together. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation vide order dated
08.08.2014 decided all four revisions by
which revision No.42 filed by respondent
No.4(Lata Devi) was allowed and remaining
revisions were dismissed, hence Writ B
No.47925 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of
the
petitioner
(Rajeshwari
Devi)
for
following relief:

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari calling
for record and quash the orders dated
08.08.2014 (Annexure No) passed by
Respondent No.1 order dated 04.07.2011
(Annexure no.11) passe by Respondent
No.2 in appeal No.27, order dated
04.07.2011 (Annexure No.10) passed by
Respondent No.2 appeal No.3/313 and
order of Consolidation Officer dated
27.05.2009 (Annexure no.7)."

4. On behalf of respondent No.4 (Lata
Devi) and one Ram Kishore Writ B No.8596
of 2015 has been filed for the following
relief:.

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
04.07.2011 passed by the respondent no.3
in appeal No.27 (Smt. Rajeswari Vs.Smt.
Lata Devi) under Rule 109 of C.H. Act
and order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the
respondent No.2 in revision No.18 (Smt.
Lata Devi Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari) Annexure
Nos.13 & 17) to the writ petition) only.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No.1 to take
necessary action against the persons who
have committed forgery/manipulation in
the revenue record, as per report of
consolidation commissioner (Annexure
No.8) to the writ petition)."

5. This Court entertained the Writ B
No.47925 of 2014 vide order dated
19.09.2014/25.09.2014 and restrained the
parties from changing the nature of
property in question.

6. This Court entertained the Writ B
No.8596
of
2015
vide
order
dated
12.02.2015 and connected the same with
Writ B No.47925 of 2014 as well as
restrained the parties from changing the
nature of property in dispute or creating
any third party interest.

7. In pursuance of the aforementioned
orders, the parties have exchanged their
affidavits.

8. Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior
counsel appearing in Writ B No.47925 of
2014 submitted that entire proceeding
consequent to the application/ objection
dated 24.11.2008 are illegal as village in
question was denotified under Section 52
of U.P.C.H. Act on 27.06.2007. He further
submitted that no objection under Section
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9-B of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the
Lata Devi as such in the proceeding under
section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act objection
regarding valuation cannot be entertained
in view of provisions contained under
Section 11 (A) of U.PC.H. Act. He further
submitted that report of Consolidator dated
20.12.2008 fully demonstrate that no case
under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was
registered in the matter. He further
submitted that limitation of filing the
objection under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act
is 15 days and the publication under
Section 20 was made on 24.03.2005, as
such the objection under Section 20 cannot
be entertained unless there is prayer for
condonation of delay. He further submitted
that every case is registered in Misil band
(C.H. Form-6) when the case is forwarded
to the consolidation officer, but in the
instant matter there is no proof that case
was registered in Misil band, as such the
entire proceeding is barred by Section 11
(A) of the U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that
provisional Consolidation Scheme was
confirmed and parties were put into
possession as well as final record under
Section 27 of U.P.C.H. Act was prepared
accordingly as such the impugned orders
passed by the Consolidation authorities
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He
further submitted that impugned orders are
liable to be set aside and the writ petition is
liable to be allowed.

9. On the other hand, Mr. H.N. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) submitted that
on the basis of the registered sale deed
dated 28.08.2004 executed in favour of
respondent No.4 (Lata Devi) in respect to
the plot in question (455 and 454/525)
respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) was recorded
in
the
revenue
records.
He
further
submitted that aforementioned plots are
adjacent to the national highway (N.H. 24)
and
having
commercial
value.
He
submitted
that
plot
No.454/525
was
proposed in the chak of the petitioner
(Rajeshwari Devi) accordingly, respondent
No.4 (Lata Devi) filed one objection in
June, 2005 much before denotification of
the village in question. He submitted that
first objection filed by petitioner was
misplaced accordingly second objection
was filed, which was entertained and
allowed in respect to plot no.454/525. He
further submitted that during consolidation
proceeding a manipulation has been done
and plot No.514/532 area 0.057 hectare
was mentioned in the map without any
basis as there was no existence of plot
no.514/532. He further submitted that
petitioner purchased plot No.514 area 0.057
hectare from Verpal, Sonpal sons of
Dulare, Jauhari, Shiv Ram, Newaram sons
of Munna Lal by means of registered sale
deed on 26.10.1998 as well as another sale
deed appears to have been executed by
Smt. Kalawati on 17.01.2014 in favour of
petitioner. He submitted that respondent
No.4 (Lata Devi) filed objection/ complaint
before authorities for initiating enquiry in
the matter in which it has been found that
16 members had committed forgery and
large number of irregularities have been
committed by the authorities. He submitted
that Consolidation Officer vide order dated
27.05.2009
rightly
declared

plot
No.454/525 outside the consolidation, but
no order was passed in respect to the plot
no.455, accordingly, appeal and revisions
were filed. He submitted that in revision
No.42, Deputy Director of Consolidation
has rightly declared that plot No.455
outside the Consolidation. He submitted
that Lata Devi & another have challenged
the revisional order passed in the revision
No.18 by way of Writ B No.8596 of 2015.
He submitted that petitioner's revision
1 All. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur & Ors.
503
no.18 should also be allowed and Writ B
No.8596
of
2015
should
also
be
accordingly allowed. In support of his
arguments, he placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court:-

1. (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases
319 [Civil Appeal No.8216 of 2003 with
Civil Appeal No.8217 of 2003 (Ram
Chandrra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and
others)]

2. (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases
581 [Civil Appeal No.2087 of 2000 (United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Rajendra
Singh and others)] with [Civil Appeal
No.2088 of 2000 (United India Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Singh and others)]

10. I have considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

11. There is no dispute about the fact
that village in question was brought under
the Consolidation and notification under
Section 20 of U.P. C.H. Act was
published on 24.03.2023, notification
under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was
published on 27.03.2003, notification
under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act
published on 27.06.2007. There is also no
dispute about the fact that Consolidation
Officer vide order dated 26.02.2009
granted benefit of Section 5 of Limitation
Act in the proceeding under Section 21 of
U.PC.H Act and vide order dated
27.05.2009 declared plot No.454/525 area
0.049 hectare as C.H. 18. There is also no
dispute about the fact that in revision
No.42 filed by respondent no.4 (Lata
Devi) plot No.455 was also declared
C.H.18.

12.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, perusal
of the report of the consolidator dated
18.12.2008 will be relevant for perusal,
which is as under:-

"न्यायालय बन्दोस्त चकबन्द अधिकार ,
िाहजहाींपुर
अपील सीं० 03/113
िारा 21(2) जो०च०अ०
श्रीमती राजेचवर देवी
बनाम
लता देवी
ग्राम र्ेदपुर परगना जमौर तहसील सदर
ररपोटा चकबन्द कताा 18.12.08

स०च०अ०-
न्यायालय
च०अ०
सदर वाद नीं० 194 िारा 21(1) जो०च०अ०
ग्राम र्ेदपुर परगना जमौर तहसील सदर के
गा० सीं० 454/525, 455 के समबन्ि में लता
देवी पत्नी रामककिोर तनवासी मोहल्ला
रोिनगींज नगर व जजला िाहजहाींपुर ने
कालबाधित प्राथाना पत् प्रस्तुत करके माींग
की है कक उसका प्रस्ताववत चक मूल जोत
के गाटो पर सडक के ककनारे ददया जाय
तथा सडक के ककनारे चौडई बढाई जाय।

आपत्ती कताा का यह र्ी कथन है
कक उसने ददनाींक 30.6.05 में आपवत्त प्रस्तुत
की थी जो वषा 2007 तक सुनवाई में रह
तत्तपचचात
पत्ावल
गायब
हो
गयी
फलस्वरूप यह आपवत्त पुनः करने पडी
इसीसलए आपवत्त कालबन्िन से मुक्त रखी
जाय।

ग्राम के असर्लेखों के अनुसार
चक सीं० 274 आपवत्तकताा के नाम अदा
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
बैनामा अींककत ककया गया है। इस चक में
मूल जोत के गाटा सीं० 455/.543, 455/ 525/
0.049 पूवा अींि दिााये गये है। तथा यह
चक गा० सीं० 453सम०/ 0.010, प454सम/
524/ 0.017, 454सम०/ 0.010, 455सम/ 0.515,
456/ 569/ 0.016 कुल 0.568 पर प्रददटट
ककया गया है। इस चक पर च०अ० वाद
सीं० 9/ 299/ 24ए अमलदरामद की अिूर
पींजक्त अींककत हो तथा चक पर ककसी प्रकार
का कोई आदेि अींककत नह ीं है। स०च०अ०
स्तर का चक यथावत है। प्रस्ताववत चक में
सींिोिन नह ीं ककया गया है।

जो. च०अ० पत्-45 में खाता सीं०
315 पर गा०सीं० 572/0.568 आपवत्तकती के
नाम अींककत ककया गया है।

ग्राम
का
िारा-20क
प्रकािन
24.3.05 तथा 52(1) प्रस्ताव माचा 2007 मे
प्रेवषत ककया जा चुका है।

आख्या उधचत कायाावाह हेतु सेवा
में सादर प्रेवषत है।
ह०अ०18.12.08 आर०एच०/कृ० पक्षों को
नोदटस जार
च०अ० सदर करते हुए ददनाींक 18.1.08
को पेि
महोदय करें ह०अ० एसी० ओ० 24.12.08
चकबन्द की ववस्तृत आख्या सादर
प्रेवषत है। ह०अ० 20.12.08"

13. The perusal of the aforementioned
report of Consolidator dated 18.12.2008 as
well as pleadings set up by both the parties
in their writ petition fully demonstrate that
village Bhedpur, Pargana-Jamaur, TehsilSadar,
Shahjahanpur
came
under
Consolidation
operation
by
way
of
notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H.
Act issued on 09.05.1997, publication
under Section-9 of U.P.C.H.Act was made
on 18.12.1998, publication under Section
20 of U.P.C.H. Act was made on
24.03.2005, publication under Section 52
of U.P.C.H. Act was made on 26.06.2001.
Perusal of the report of consolidator also
demonstrates that chak objection was filed
along with prayer for condonation of delay.
The Consolidation Officer while deciding
the chak objection filed by respondent
No.4 (Lata Devi) has considered the fact
that plot No.454/525 is situated adjacent to
the N.H.24 (Bareilly-Saharanpur road) as
such in view of the provisions contained
under the Consolidation Manual the road
side plots are to be declared C.H.18. The
record as well as the pleading set up in the
instant petitions as well as in Writ B
No.363 of 2022 fully demonstrate that
earlier objection filed by the petitioner was
recorded in the Misil band register also.
The certified copy of the same is produced
before the Court at the time of argument
and true copy of the same is annexed as
annexure No.C-A.2 to the counter affidavit
filed in Writ B No.363 of 2022. The
relevant extract of the same will be relevant
for perusal which is as under:

"नकल- समससलबन्द - न्यायालय चकबन्द
अधिकार (प्रथम) िाहजहााँपुर

िारा० 21(1) जो०च० अधितनयम वषा- 20052006
 लता देवी गाटा सीं०.
 455,454,565,
 484/425 के
 समबन्ि में
1 All. Smt. Rachana Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505
9/299 र्ेदपुर। 30/6/05
जमौर
Vs.
सरकार

14. It is material to mention that plot
N.454/525, 455 are situated adjacent to
N.H. 24 and objection was filed on behalf
of respondent no.4 (Lata Devi) along with
prayer for condonation of delay before
denotification of the village as such there is
no illegality in the order passed by the
Consolidation authorities for declaring the
plot No.454/525 area 0.049 hectare as well
as plot No.455 area 0.543 hectare as C.H.
18. The entry in Misil Band also
demonstrate that objection was filed by
Lata Devi before denotification of the
village.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation while deciding the every
revisions has rightly considered the claim
of the parties and dismissed the revisions
filed by respective parties except revision
NO.48 filed by Lata Devi.

15. This Court in the case reported in
1985 RD 71 Paras Nath Singh versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others has held that an order which is
illegal cannot be quashed or set aside in
Writ jurisdiction if quashing of it results in
bringing on record another illegal order.
Paragraph No.21 of the judgment rendered
in Paras Nath Singh (Supra) will be
relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"21. It is, no doubt, correct to
say that any order passed without
jurisdiction is a nullity and deserves to be
quashed. But if as a result of quashing
that order another wrong and illegal order
would be restored, this Court would refuse
to interfere with the impugned order
which appears to be quite proper equitable
and just order. As mentioned above, the
power
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution is devised to advance justice
and not to thwart it. To me it appears to be
well settled that an order which is illegal
cannot be quashed or set aside in writ
jurisdiction if quashing of it results in
bringing on record another illegal order."

16. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no scope
of interference by this Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution of India against the impugned
orders passed by Consolidation authorities.

17. The Writ Petition No.47925 of
2014 filed by Rajeshwari Devi is dismissed
and the Writ Petition No.8596 of 2015 filed
by Smt.Lata Devi is disposed of in view of
the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation in
reference proceeding under Section 48 (3)
of U.P.C.H. Act.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 953 of 2025

Smt. Rachana Soni ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rinku Verma, Ajeet Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: