# Ramashray v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-22
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 4204 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramashray-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54064
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1 All. Ramashray Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 4204 of 2025

Ramashray ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether Deputy Director of Consolidation can change the allotment made by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation after being in operation for more than a decade, without affording proper opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner?
(b) Whether after a long period, further remand to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the chak
revision afresh against the allotment made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2008, is in the
interest of justice?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 9-A(2), 19, 48 - It is material
to mention that u/s 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, it has been provided that as far as possible tenure holder
should be allotted chak on their original plot, as such it is not necessary that each and every
tenure holder should be allotted every chak on their original plots. In the instant matter the
allotment which was made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation about 16 years ago that remained in
operation for about 16 years as such the further change made by Deputy Director of Consolidation after 16
years is not in the interest of justice. (Para 10)

In chak appeal filed by petitioner, petitioner was adjusted on plot No.15M, 16M, 17M and respondent No.5
was adjusted on plot No.288, 289, 233 but under the impugned revisional order passed after about more than
16 years, the petitioner has been allotted chak on plot Nos.289, 233, 288 and respondent No.5 has been
allotted chak on plot No.15M, 16M and 17M. (Para 9)

B. Allotment made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation about 16 years before has been
changed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without affording proper opportunity of hearing
to petitioner which is essential criteria for deciding the revision u/s 48 of U .P.C.H. Act. (Para 11)

C. After such a long period, further remand to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the
chak revision afresh against the allotment made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the
year 2008, is also not in the interest of justice rather to finalize the allotment of one stage in the
matter. (Para 11)

The impugned revisional order dated 15.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation
is hereby set aside. The order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 28.05.2008 is maintained.
(Para 12, 13)

Writ petition allowed.(E-4)
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts
 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

List of Keywords
 allotment, consolidation, settlement, plot, long period, justice, tenure holder.

Appearances for Parties

For Petitioner(s): Ajay Shankar, Triveni Shanker
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., R S Dubey, Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Savita Dubey, Umesh Kumar Prasad

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

1. Heard Mr. Triveni Shanker, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Garima Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Ashutosh
Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr.
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4/ Gram Panchayat.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.227-ba of the plots situated in
Village-Shahpur, Pargana-Khareed, Tehsil-Bansdeh, District-Ballia. Original holding of the
petitioner are plot No.16/2 area 0.170 hectare, 169 area 0.125 hectare, 233/1 area 0.261 hectare,
233/2 area 0.010 hectare, 286 area 0.134 hectare, 289 area 0.198 hectare total 6 plots area 0.898
hectare as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition. Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act)
divided share of Ram Suresh as 1/4, Ramashray, 1/4, Shiv Shankar 1/4, Rajaram 1/4. Petitioner was
proposed two chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak was proposed to petitioner on
plot No.288 M, 289 M and second chak was proposeed to petitioner on plot No.233 M, 233M, 233
M total 5 plots area 0.203 hectare. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer,
chak objection was filed by respondent No.5-Rajaram, which was decided by Consolidation officer
vide order dated 10.03.2008 disturbing the petitioner's chak. Against the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 10.3.2008, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before
Settlement Officer of Consolidation stating that he should be allotted chak at plot No.386 and 389.
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 28.5.2008 allowed the appeal filed by
petitioner and allotted chak to petitioner on plot No.15M, 16M, 17 M and respondent No.5Rajaram was allotted chak on plot No.288 M, 289, 233M. Against the appellate order dated
28.5.2008, respondent No.5-Rajaram filed chak revision claiming the allotment of chak on his
original plot no.16/2 area 0.42 decimal. The aforementioned chak revision filed by respondent
No.5-Rajaram, remained pending for about 16 years. During pendency of the aforementioned chak
revision, Ram Suresh has expired and legal heirs of deceased Ram Suresh have also expired as well
as certain other person in the revision have also expired, but no substitution application has been
filed in the pending chak revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.7.2025
allowed the revision and disturbed the petitioner's chak by taking out the plot No.15M, 16M and 17
M from the chak of the petitioner and allotted the same to the respondent No.5-Rajaram. Hence this
writ petition for the following relief:-
1 All. Ramashray Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 15.7.2025 (Annexure No.1) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 17.10.2025 and stayed the effect and operation of the
impugned revisional order dated 15.7.2025. The order dated 17.10.2025 runs as under:-

"1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer
clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.S. Dubey,
learned counsel for respondent no.5, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the revisional stage, the chak of the
petitioner has been disturbed without considering the comparative hardship of the petitioner in
proper manner. He further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing has also not been
afforded to the petitioner by the revisional court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondent no.5 submitted that there
is no illegality in the impugned order, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, adjusting
both the parties in proper manner. He further submitted that the matter be decided finally as
under the impugned order, chak of respondent no.5 has been affected only and chak of other
private respondents not been affected under the impugned order.

5. Matter requires consideration.

6. Respondent no.5 is the contesting respondent whose chak has been disturbed under
the impugned order, as such, issuance of notices to the remaining private respondents shall be
considered on the next date of hearing.

7. Respondent No.5 shall file counter affidavit within a week. Petitioner will file
rejoinder affidavit within a week thereafter.

8. Put up this matter as fresh on 4.11.2025 at 12.00 P.M.

9. Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the impugned
revisional order dated 15.7.2025, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, shall remain
stayed as well as the parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo with respect to nature
and possession of the plot in dispute."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2025, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No.5 and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit.

5. Notice has not been issued to other private respondents as chak of petitioner and respondent
no.5 have been adjusted under the impugned orders which is very much demonstrated from the
schedule prepared in support of impugned orders.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has
rightly decided the chak appeal filed by petitioner in the year 2008. He submitted that chak revision
filed by respondent No.5 in the year 2008 remained pending for more than 16 years and several
purpose have expired but without substituting the legal heirs of deceased party, the Deputy Director
of Consolidation has passed the impugned order. He further submitted that without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, chak revision filed by respondent No.5 has been allowed
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disturbing the chak allotment made by appellate court in the year 2008. He further submitted that in
pursuance of the allotment made by Settlement officer of Consolidation in the year 2008
respondent No.5-Rajaram had changed the nature of the land allotted to him by Settlement officer
of Consolidation taking out the earth for construction of brick which has been resulted into making
the plot unfit for cultivation. He submitted that in any case, the petitioner cannot be allotted the
chak on plot which has been made un-cultiviabale by respondent No.5-Rajaram. He submitted that
allotment made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be maintained and the impugned
revisional order should be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that chak
appeal filed by petitioner was allowed in illegal and arbitrary manner accordingly in chak revision,
the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly adjusted the chak to the parties as prescribed
under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that respondent No.5-Rajaram has never
sold the earth as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that delay has been
caused in deciding the revision as consolidation proceeding was cancelled by Consolidation
Commissioner vide order dated 22.12.2008, but the order of cancellation was stayed by this Court
vide order dated 21.5.2009. He further submitted that respondent No.5 is original chak holder of
plot No.16M as such respondent No.5 has beeen adjusted over the same. He submitted that there is
no illegality in the impugned revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
adjusting petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 to their original plots as far as possible as provided
under Section-19 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that no interference is required against the
impugned revisional order and writ petition field by petitioner should be dismissed.

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

9. There is no dispute about the fact that in chak appeal filed by petitioner, petitioner was
adjusted on plot No.15M, 16M, 17M and respondent No.5 was adjusted on plot No.288, 289, 233
but under the impugned revisional order passed after about more than 16 years , the petitioner has
been allotted chak on plot Nos.289, 233, 288 and respondent No.5 has been allotted chak on plot
No.15M, 16M and 17 M.

10. It is material to mention that under Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act, it has been provided that as
far as possible tenure holder should be allotted chak on their original plot, as such it is not
necessary that each and every tenure holder should be allotted every chak on their original plots. In
the instant matter the allotment which was made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation about 16
years before that was remained in operation for about 16 years as such the further change made by
Deputy Director of Consolidation after 16 years is not in the interest of justice.

11. It is also material to mention that argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.5 has made plot No.233, 288 and 289 un-cultiviable although counsel
for the respondent has objected the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner for
making the plot unfit for cultivation. but the fact remains that allotment made by Settlement Officer
of Consolidation about 16 years before has been changed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
1 All. Shanti Devi Vs. Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C.
509
without affording proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner which is essential criteria for deciding
the revision under Section 48 of U .P.C.H. Act.

11. It is also material to mention that after such a long period, further remand to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to decide the chak revision afresh against the allotment made by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2008, is also not in the interest of justice rather to
finalize the allotment of one stage in the matter.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order
dated 15.7.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set
aside and the same is hereby set aside.

13. The writ petition stands allowed and the order passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation dated 28.5.2008 is hereby maintained.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 509
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 21333 of 2013

Shanti Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
 Whether Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise his jurisdiction against any order passed by the
consolidation authority subordinate to him in view of the provisions contained u/s 44- A of U.P.C.H. Act. to
examine in proper manner, the issue of the disputed plots being same or different in the earlier proceeding
and in the subsequent proceeding?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953: Section 9-A(2), 12, 44-A; U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 176 - Deputy Director of Consolidation
can exercise the jurisdiction against any order passed by the consolidation authority subordinate
to him in view of the provisions contained u/s 44- A of U.P.C.H. Act. Respondent no.2 /Chaina Devi
has filed two restoration applications, one before Consolidation Officer and another before Deputy Director of
Consolidation along with prayer for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly
exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside the order allowing the revisions dated 03.09.2012 as well as order
dated 07.11.2012 passed by Consolidation Officer, allowing the application filed u/s 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. (Para
11)