# Ramesh Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-06
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1457 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-kanpur-dehat-ors-47717
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
226,
-
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, - Sections 4, 5, 5(2), 5(2) (a)
& (b), 9-A (2), 49 & 52: - Challenging the
validity of order of DDC - by which the DDC
court confirming the order of SCO - Notification
u/s 4 of the U.P. CH Act, in the petitioner's
village - during consolidation proceeding - an
objection u/s 9-A(2) moved by the petitioner for
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat & Ors.
301
kept out of the plots in question from the
consolidation operation on the ground that
these are subject matter of a civil suit which is
still pending - whether the pendency of the civil
suit bars the jurisdiction of the consolidation
court - court finds that - consolidation authority
are competent to examine the right and title of
the parties with respect to the land in question,
which is covered by notification u/s 4 of the U.P.
CH Act, therefore, consequence of such
notification has to follow as enunciated u/s 5 of
the Act - thus, no illegality, ambiguity or
infirmity in the impugned orders - writ petition is
dismissed. (Para - 4, 20, 21)

Writ Petition is Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

45. To sum up, we do not find any
major contradiction either in the evidence
of the PW-1 or any conflict in the medical
or occular evidence as deposed by PW-1
which would tilt the balance in favour of
the opponents. The minor improvements,
embelishments etc, apart from being for
yield of human faculties are insignificant
and ought to be ignored since the evidence
of the witnesses otherwise overwhelmingly
corroborate
each
other
in
material
particulars. The testimony of PW-1 gets
support from medical as well as other
evidence on record. The method, time and
manner of causing the death, the weapon
used,
the
place
of
occurrence
and
promptness in lodging the F.I.R.,and the
motive, all these factors corroborate the
testimony as deposed by the occular
witness Alchendra Singh. His presence on
the spot cannot be said to be doubtful. As a
result, the evidence as deposed by PW-1
Alchendra Singh is wholly reliable and
trustworthy.

46. Finally, having regard to the
evidence on record, we are of the opinion
that the trial court has correctly analyzed
the material on record in the factual as well
as legal perspective while arriving at its
conclusion. The judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh requires no
interference and is hereby affirmed. The
appeals filed by the appellants being devoid
of merit are liable to be dismissed.

47. All the appeals are accordingly,
dismissed.

48. The appellant Teekam Singh is on
bail. The court concerned is directed to take
the appellant namely Teekam Singh in
custody forthwith and send him to jail to
serve out the remaining sentence.

49. The appellants Kaptan Singh,
Bhoora Singh @ Nepal Singh and Rohtash
Singh are in jail.

50. The appellant Rajan @ Rajendra
has been released on 15.02.2020 from jail
on remission of his sentence in pursuance
of the Government Order dated 11.02.2020.

51. The office is directed to transmit
back the lower court record alongwith a
certified copy of this judgment for
information and necessary compliance.

52. Certify this judgment to the court
below immediately for necessary action.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 1457 of 2022

Ramesh Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur
Dehat & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nikhil Kumar, Sri Prashant Kanha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajjan Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article
226,
-
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, - Sections 4, 5, 5(2), 5(2) (a)
& (b), 9-A (2), 49 & 52: - Challenging the
validity of order of DDC - by which the DDC
court confirming the order of SCO - Notification
u/s 4 of the U.P. CH Act, in the petitioner's
village - during consolidation proceeding - an
objection u/s 9-A(2) moved by the petitioner for
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat & Ors.
301
kept out of the plots in question from the
consolidation operation on the ground that
these are subject matter of a civil suit which is
still pending - whether the pendency of the civil
suit bars the jurisdiction of the consolidation
court - court finds that - consolidation authority
are competent to examine the right and title of
the parties with respect to the land in question,
which is covered by notification u/s 4 of the U.P.
CH Act, therefore, consequence of such
notification has to follow as enunciated u/s 5 of
the Act - thus, no illegality, ambiguity or
infirmity in the impugned orders - writ petition is
dismissed. (Para - 4, 20, 21)

Writ Petition is Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Vs District Judge
Mau & ors. (1999 vol. 1 AWC 152),

2. Ram Padarth Vs A,D.J., Sultanpur (1989 RD
21),

3. Shri Ram & anr. Vs 1st A.D.J. & ors. (2001 Vol.
92 RD 241),

4. Sita Ram Vs Chhota Bhondey & ors. (1990 RD
439),

5. Smt. Dulari Devi Vs Janardan Singh & others
(1990 RD 193),

6. Narendra Singh Vs Jai Bhagwan & ors. (2006
RD 69),

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the private
respondents No. 4 and learned standing
counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 3
and 5 and perused the record.

2.
Petitioner
has
invoked
the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by
way of filing the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 20.4.2022
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation affirming the order dated
25.1.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, arising out of order dated
15.7.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer
in a proceeding under Section 9A (2) of UP
Consolidation of Holdings Act (In brevity,
'U.P.C.H. Act').

3. Facts culled out from the averments
made in the writ petition are that the
present writ petition is arising out of
objection dated 15.6.2009 under Section 9A
(2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act
filed on behalf of the present petitioner
with a prayer that plot No. 245 area 1.0790
hectare, plot No. 260 area 1.0030 hectare
and plot No. 289 area 1.6190 hectare
situated in village Ghar, Tehsil Bhognipur,
District Kanpur Dehat may be kept out of
consolidation operation on the ground that
with respect to these plots, civil suit is
going on between the parties. It is averred
in the application that property belongs to
Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner), who was
of unsound mind, and taking benefits of his
mental illness respondent No. 4 has got sale
deed dated 8.9.2011 executed in his favour.
On the basis thereof, he got his name
mutated in the revenue record. Objection
goes on alleging that Shiv Lal had filed a
civil suit being Original Suit No. 573 of
2011
against
Dharmendra
Kumar
(respondent No. 4), which is pending
consideration. Civil Court has granted
interim
order
dated
19.9.2011
for
maintaining
status
quo
on
spot.
Consolidation Officer has rejected the
objection moved by the petitioner, vide its
order dated 15.7.2021 (annexure No. 3),
with an observation that plot No. 260 is
already out of consolidation operation and
exchange value of plot No. 289 and 245
and their surrounding plots has already
been fixed in the consolidation operation,
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, prayer, to keep the aforesaid
plots out of consolidation operation, cannot
be accepted. Order dated 15.7.2021 passed
by Consolidation Officer was affirmed by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide its
order dated 25.1.2022 and Deputy Director
of Consolidation vide its order dated
20.4.2022, which are under challenge in the
present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the suit for injunction has been
filed against the private respondent No. 4
and interim order is granted in the aforesaid
suit for maintaining status quo over the
land in question, therefore, consolidation
authorities have got no jurisdiction to
continue any type of proceeding relating to
the subject matter of the suit. In support of
his contention, he has cited the decision of
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Kanchan Kumar Chaudhary Vs. District
Judge, Mau and others, reported in 1999
(1) AWC
152.
By
interpreting
the
provisions as enunciated under Section 5
(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, learned counsel for the
petitioner has tried to submit that the
consolidation
courts
have
got
no
jurisdiction to examine the legality and
validity of the sale deed said to have been
executed in favour of the respondent No. 4.
It is further submitted that the pendency of
the civil suit bars the jurisdiction of the
consolidation court to examine the right
and title of the parties over the land in
question. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner, the consolidation courts have
passed the order without application of
mind
and
without
considering
the
provisions of law, as enunciated under the
U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, orders impugned
are illegal and suffers from infirmities and,
therefore, are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents No. 4 contended that Shiv Lal
had executed the registered sale deed dated
8.9.2011, in a sound state of mind, in
favour of the respondent No. 4, which still
stands unchallenged. Civil Suit i.e. Original
Suit No. 573 of 2011 has been filed only
for the permanent injunction against the
defendant/respondent No. 4 with prayer not
to interfere in the possession of the
plaintiff, which is evident from the plaint
annexed in the writ petition, therefore, right
and title of the respondent No. 4 on the
basis of the registered sale deed cannot be
questioned. The name of the respondent
No. 4 is already recorded in the revenue
record by the orders passed by revenue
authorities and the same was affirmed by
this Court, vide its order dated 23.10.2013
passed in Writ Petition No. 58029 of 2013,
which became final between the parties. It
has further been contended that in the basic
consolidation
record,
name
of
the
respondent No. 4 was recorded, therefore,
consolidation authorities have rightly fixed
the exchange value of the aforesaid plot in
the name of respondent No. 4. Interim
order dated 19.9.2011 passed by the civil
court was a time bound interim order only
upto 10.11.2011 but, thereafter, there is
nothing on record to show as to what has
happened after 10.11.2011. Supporting the
impugned orders passed by consolidation
courts, learned counsel for the respondents
No. 4 contended that the legality and validity
of the sale deed cannot be questioned at this
juncture and there is no ambiguity, perversity
or infirmity in the said orders so as to warrant
any indulgence of this Court in exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, therefore, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
with cost.
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat & Ors.
303

6. Carefully considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

7. Question for consideration in the
instant matter lies in a narrow compass as
to whether the consolidation authorities
have got jurisdiction to fix the exchange
value of the plots in question and carve out
chak in the name of respondent No. 4
(recorded tenure holder) over there, which
is a subject matter of civil suit.

8. Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act
denotes
the
provision
for
gazette
notification of any particular area for the
purposes of the consolidation operation.
The effect of the notification under Section
4 of U.P.C.H. Act, as enunciated under
Section 5 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, denotes
the abatement of proceedings regarding the
correction of record & civil suit and
proceeding, in respect of declaration of
right, title or interest in any land lying in
the area, or for declaration or adjudication
of any other right in regard to which
proceeding can or ought to be taken under
the U.P.C.H. Act. For ready reference
relevant portion of Section 5 (2) of
U.P.C.H. Act is quoted hereinunder-

Section 5 (2)- "Upon the said
publication of the notification under subsection (2) of Section 4, the following
further consequences shall ensue in the
area to which the notification relates,
namely -

(a) every proceeding for the
correction of records and every suit and
proceeding in respect of declaration of
rights or interest in any land lying in the
area, or for declaration or adjudication
of any other right in regard to which
proceedings can or ought to be taken
under this Act, pending before any Court
or authority whether of the first instance
or of appeal, reference or revision, shall,
on an order being passed in that behalf
by the Court or authority before whom
such suit or proceeding is pending, stand
abated :

Provided ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Provided ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(b) such abatement shall be
without prejudice to the rights of the
persons affected to agitate the right or
interest in dispute in the said suits or
proceedings
before
the
appropriate
consolidation authorities under and in
accordance with the provisions of this
Act and the rules made thereunder.]

Explanation- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"

9. Conjoint reading of sub-clause (a)
& (b) of clause 2 of Section 5 evince the
protection to the rights of the persons, who
are affected owing to abatement of suit or
proceeding, as enumerated under subclause (a), to agitate their right or interest
under the relevant provisions of U.P.C.H.
Act and the rules made thereunder.

10. In this respect, provisions as
enunciated under Section 49 of U.P.C.H.
Act, though not much relevant in facts of
the present writ petition, is also required to
be entertained, which creates a bar to the
civil court jurisdiction with respect to the
right and title of the parties over the land in
question, which falls within the ambit of
notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H.
Act.

11. Drawing distinction between
Section 5 (2) and Section 49 of the
U.P.C.H. Act, in case of Kanchan Kumar
Chaudhary (supra), this Court explained
that both the sections operates with the
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same object but deals with two distinct and
different fields, but in respect of same class
of cases. While section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H.
Act deals with the pending cases, Section
49 of U.P.C.H. Act deals with the
institution of cases. Both the sections are
complimentary to each other for the self
same object in two different situations.
Inasmuch as Section 5 freezes pendency of
cases while section 49 forbids institution of
fresh cases of the class of cases enumerated
therein which are common in both. Both
the sections are part of the same scheme.

12. Full Bench decision of this Court
in the matter of Ram Padarth Vs.
Additional District Judge, Sultanpur,
reported in 1989 RD 21 has diluted the
distinction between the void and voidable
document with respect to the filing a suit
for cancellation of document before the
appropriate Court i.e. Civil Court or
Revenue Court. It is held that the person,
who is recorded tenure holder, having
prima facie title in his favour, can hardly be
directed to approach the revenue court in
respect of seeking relief for cancellation of
the void document. Meaning thereby, a
person who is not a recorded tenure holder
can
take
a
shelter
in
the
revenue
court/consolidation court for establishing
his/her right and title over the property in
dispute. The relevant paragraph of the
verdict given by the Full Bench in the case
of Ram Padarath (supra) is reproduced
hereunder:

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

The
jurisdiction
of
the
consolidation authorities is wider than
civil and revenue court. Section 5 (2) of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
provides that any suit pending in the
trial court or in appeal before any
appellate court in which right, title and
interest over land is involved will stand
abated. In view of the said provision any
appeal, may it be a special appeal,
pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court,
would abate. Adjudication of right, title
and
interest
over
"land"
by
the
consolidation authorities is final. Section
8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act provides for revision of the village
map
after
provisional
consolidation
Scheme for unit is prepared. Section 8-A
of the said Act provides for preparation
of principles, while section 9 provides for
issue of extracts from records and
statements and publication of records
mentioned in section 8 and section 8-A
and issue of notice for inviting objection.
Section 9-A provides for disposal of cases
relating to claim to land and partition of
joint holding. The order passed by the
consolidation
officer
is
subject
to
appellate and revisional jurisdiction.
Even if rights are claimed on the basis of
void sale deed or questioned before the
consolidation
authorities,
the
consolidation authorities, after recording
a finding on the same that it was void
sale deed, can determine the rights, title
and interest in the land in accordance
with law, ignoring the said deed on the
ground that it was void. The entries are
to be corrected by the consolidation
authorities themselves and one has not to
approach the authorities under U.P.
Land Revenue Act after decision by civil
or revenue court to correct the papers in
accordance with their judgment and
decree. If a document is cancelled by
civil court then entry is to be made by
the registering officer on the copy as
provided in Section 31 (2) of the Specific
Relief Act, which gives seal to the legal
infectiveness of the said document. But
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat & Ors.
305
after determination by consolidation
authorities the right, title of the parties
taking into consideration void document,
the entries will be corrected. After
consolidation operations are over, the
question cannot be raised or raked up
before any civil or revenue court
thereafter in view of section 49 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act which
puts a bar on the jurisdiction of civil or
revenue court not only to adjudicate
such right and title or interest over land
adjudicated by consolidation authorities
or which could have been raised before
them,
but
was
not
raised.
The
jurisdiction of consolidation authorities
is thus wider than that of civil court and
revenue court.

(extracted
paragraph
from
page 26 & 28)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

We are of the view that the case
of Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari (1982
AlR 517 (HC LB) has been correctly
decided and the said decision requires no
consideration, while the Division Bench
Case, Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri
(1981 AWC 469) is regarding the
jurisdiction of consolidation authorities,
but so far as it holds that suit in respect
of void document will lie in the revenue
court, it does not lay down a good law.
Suit or action for cancellation of void
document will generally lie in the civil
court and a party cannot be deprived of
his right getting this relief permissible
under law except when a declaration of
right or status as a tenure-holder is
necessarily needed, in which event relief
for cancellation will be surplusage and
redundant. A recorded tenure-holder
having prima facie title in his favour can
hardly be directed to approach the
revenue court in respect of seeking relief
for cancellation of a void document
which made him to approach the court
of law and in such case he can also claim
ancillary relief even though the same can
be granted by the revenue court.

(extracted paragraph from page 31)

13. Judgment of Ram Padarath
(supra) subsequently relied upon in several
decisions of Hon'ble Court. In the matter of
Sri Ram and another Vs. 1st Additional
District Judge and others, reported in
2001 (92) RD 241, Hon'ble Supreme Court
succinctly held that normally tenure holder
having prima facie title and in possession,
files a suit in the civil court for cancellation
of sale deed having obtained on the ground
of fraud or impersonation, cannot be
directed to file a suit for declaration in the
revenue court. But the position would be
different where a person not being a
recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation
of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil
Court on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation. Relevant paragraph No.
6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted
hereinunder:

6. On analysis of the decisions
cited above, we are of the opinion that
where a recorded tenure holder, having a
prima facie title and in possession files
suit in the civil court for cancellation of
sale deed having obtained on the ground
of fraud or impersonation cannot be
directed to file a suit for declaration in
the revenue court-reason being that in
such a case, prima facie, the title of the
recorded tenure holder is not under
cloud. He does not require declaration of
his title to the land. The position would
be different where a person not being a
recorded
tenure
holder
seeks
cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the civil court on the ground of fraud
or impersonation. There necessarily the
plaintiff is required to seek a declaration
of his title and, therefore, he may be
directed to approach the revenue court,
as the sale deed being void has to be
ignored
for
giving
him
relief
for
declaration and possession.

14. Even in the matter where cotenancy has been claimed on the ground
that collateral descendant was recorded in
the
representative
capacity,
Hon'ble
Supreme Court has normally held in the
case of Sita Ram Vs. Chhota Bhondey
and others, reported in 1990 RD 439 that
such claims falls within the ambit of
Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. Relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is
quoted herebelow:

"In the instant case respondent
No. 1 was claiming an interest in the land
lying in the area covered by notification
issued under section 4 (2) on the basis
that he is the son of Chhota, brother of
Nanha and that the lands were recorded
in the name of Nanha in a representative
capacity on behalf of himself and his
other brothers. This claim which fell
within the ambit of Section 5 (2) had to
be adjudicated by the consolidation
authorities. Since it was a matter falling
within
the
scope
of
adjudicatory
functions assigned to the consolidation
authorities under the Act the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in
respect of the said matter was expressly
barred by Section 49 of the Act and the
suit
of
the
appellant
was
rightly
dismissed on that ground."

15. In another case of Smt. Dulari
Devi Vs. Janardan Singh and others,
reported in 1990 RD 193, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that where sale
deed has been obtained fraudulently by any
person, suit for its cancellation or right of
the vendor, is not maintainable before the
civil court by reason of bar contained in the
U.P.C.H. Act.

16. In another case of Narendra
Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan and others
reported in 2006 (RD) 69, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has discarded the claim of a
person being a joint owner of the property
in question on the ground that he had to
approach before the competent authority
under the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act.

17. It is admitted, in the matter in
hand, that respondent No. 4 was recorded
tenure holder of the land in question on the
basis of the registered sale deed dated
8.9.2011 said to have been executed by
Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner). Mutation
order dated 1.4.2013 passed by the Naib
Tehsildar was confirmed by Additional
Commissioner vide order dated 19.7.2013.
Ultimately, proceedings was culminated in
favour of the respondent No. 4 vide order
dated 23.10.2013 passed by High Court in
writ petition No. 58029 of 2013, which
became final between the parties. It appears
that Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner) had
filed a suit dated 19.9.2011 for permanent
injunction against the respondent No. 4 and
Ram Natha Yadav. A copy of the plaint is
annexed in the petitioner as annexure No. 4
(page 62 to 69). Perusal of plaint reveals
that it was filed for the permanent
injunction not for the cancellation of the
sale deed, though before filing suit sale
deed had already been executed. Interim
order dated 19.9.2011 was granted for a
limited period for maintaining status quo
on spot, that too, up to only the next date
fixed i.e. 10.10.2011. There is nothing on
record to show as to what happened to the
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat & Ors.
307
interim injunction application or as to
whether stay order was extended or not.

18. It appears that the name of the
respondent No. 4 was recorded in the basic
consolidation record and, accordingly,
exchange value of the plot in question was
fixed by the Consolidation Officer and chak
was carved out in his name. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation, on the basis of
report submitted by Consolidator, has given
a categorical finding that in basic year
Khatauni 1422 to 1427 Fasli, name of
Dharmendra Kumar, respondent No. 4 was
recorded over Khata No. 99, which consists
of plot No. 245 and 260. Apart from that,
name of Vishal and Dharmendra Kumar
was recorded over Khata No. 269, which
consists of plot No. 289. It is further
observed that plot No. 260 was kept out of
consolidation proceeding but exchange
value of plots No. 245 and 289 was fixed in
the consolidation operation. Considering all
these aspects of the matter, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation came to the
conclusion that the exchange value of the
aforesaid plots No. 245 and 289 has rightly
been fixed by the consolidation authorities,
therefore, at this juncture, it would not be
befitting to keep them out of consolidation
operation. It has further been observed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation that
the order passed by the competent court
qua plots No. 245 and 289 would be
adhered to in future.

19. Counsel for the respondents has
hammered his submissions on the basis of
the observation made by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the matter of Kanchan
Kumar Chaudhari (supra) in which
Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been
dealt with and it has been held that suit for
the injunction does not come within the
ambit of U.P.C.H. Act. The facts of
Kanchan Kumar Chaudhari (supra) are
different and same is not fully applicable in
the instant matter. Full Bench decision of
this Court in the matter of Ram Padarath
(supra) lay all the controversy at rest qua
jurisdiction
of
civil
or
revenue/consolidation court.

20. Having regard to the judgments,
as discussed above, submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and the
record on Board, this Court is of considered
opinion that all the three consolidation
courts have rightly decided the matter
discarding the prayer of the petitioners to
keep
the plots
in question
out
of
consolidation operation. Once the village is
notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H.
Act, the person, who is recorded in the
basic consolidation record cannot be denied
from his valuable rights over the property
in question unless the genuineness of entry
and his right and title is challenged under
the relevant provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. In
this eventuality, consolidation authority are
competent to examine the right and title of
the parties with respect to the land in
question, which is covered by notification
under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act,
therefore, consequence of such notification
has to follow as enunciated under Section 5
of U.P.C.H. Act.

21. In this conspectus as above,
learned counsel for the petitioner fails to
substantiate his submission in assailing the
impugned
orders
passed
by
three
consolidation courts whereby prayer made
by the petitioner to keep the plot No. 245
and 289 out of consolidation operation has
been denied. There is no illegality,
ambiguity and infirmity in the impugned
orders passed by all the three consolidation
courts,which may warrant indulgence of
this Court in exercise of extraordinary
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

22. Resultantly, the instant writ
petition, being devoid of merits and
misconceived, is dismissed with no order as
to the cost.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 308
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Writ C No. 25471 of 2022

Nilesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bharat Kishore Srivastava, Sri Shyam
Mohan Singh, Sri Janardan Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 243E
&
243-Q(2)
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1916- Sections 3 (1),
4(1) - Constitution of Municipalities -
Nagar Panchayat for an area in transition
from a rural area to an urban area -
Petitioner
challenged
the
notification
notifying the local limits of a transitional
area & with a prayer to restrain the
respondents
from
interfering
in
the
functioning of the petitioner as elected
Gram Pradhan - Held - Under Section 3A(2) of the Act, every Nagar Panchayat or
Municipal Council constituted under subsection (1) is a body corporate - with the
issuance of the notification, an entirely
new body in the name of Nagar Panchayat
- Haisar Bazar came into existence, which
has a separate and distinct identity from
its predecessor i.e., the Gram Panchayats
whose territories have been merged in
constituting the Nagar Panchayat - Gram
Panchayat of which the petitioner was
Pradhan, had ceased to exist - Petitioner
is left with no subsisting right to continue
to function as Pradhan or to resist holding
of election of the newly constituted Nagar
Panchayat (Para 9, 10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Mohini Sharma Vs. St. of U.P., 2016 (10)
ADJ 221

2. Nagar Palika Parishad & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2010 (3) ADJ 703

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. The instant petition is directed
against the notification dated 10.12.2020
issued under Section 4(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Municipalities
Act,
1916
(hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and the
notification dated 22.07.2022 issued under
Section 3 (1) of the Act read with Article
243-Q of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus
directing the respondents not to initiate
exercise for fresh election of the newly
constituted Nagar Palika and also restrain
the respondents from interfering in the
functioning of the petitioner as elected
Gram Pradhan of Village Ahara, District
Sant
Kabir
Nagar
for
period
upto
3.05.2026.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he
was elected as Gram Pradhan of Village
Ahara,
Block
Haisar
Bazar,
Tehsil
Dhanghatta, District Sant Kabir Nagar on