# Reshma Bi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 814
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-15
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 4137 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reshma-bi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51663
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 19, 19-A, 20, 21, 23,
24, 28, 42-A, 48(3) & 52 - Writ petition
challenging reference order dated 29.09.2023
passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation
(DDC)
under
Section
48(3)
disturbing
petitioner's chak No. 273 - Held, DDC exceeded
jurisdiction by amending petitioner's finalized
chak to adjust valuation shortfall of Rs.178.51
paisa in respondent No. 5's chak No. 80 - No
provision under law permits altering finalized
chak post-notification under Section 24 or
denotification under Section 52, except in cases
of excess allocation, incorrect record, mutual
consent, or compliance with legal provisions -
Shortfall in respondent No. 5's chak could be
addressed from bachat or gaon sabha land -
Order
dated
29.09.2023
partly
quashed
regarding petitioner's chak valuation of Rs.96.11
paisa - Matter remitted to DDC for fresh
decision to adjust respondent No. 5's shortfall
from bachat/gaon sabha land within three
months,
followed
by
demarcation
and
possession delivery within two months. (Para 812)

Writ petition allowed in part.

## Text

814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 814
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 4137 of 2023

Reshma Bi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava III

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C., Sri Rajesh
Singh Rathore, Sri Vikas Mishra

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 19, 19-A, 20, 21, 23,
24, 28, 42-A, 48(3) & 52 - Writ petition
challenging reference order dated 29.09.2023
passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation
(DDC)
under
Section
48(3)
disturbing
petitioner's chak No. 273 - Held, DDC exceeded
jurisdiction by amending petitioner's finalized
chak to adjust valuation shortfall of Rs.178.51
paisa in respondent No. 5's chak No. 80 - No
provision under law permits altering finalized
chak post-notification under Section 24 or
denotification under Section 52, except in cases
of excess allocation, incorrect record, mutual
consent, or compliance with legal provisions -
Shortfall in respondent No. 5's chak could be
addressed from bachat or gaon sabha land -
Order
dated
29.09.2023
partly
quashed
regarding petitioner's chak valuation of Rs.96.11
paisa - Matter remitted to DDC for fresh
decision to adjust respondent No. 5's shortfall
from bachat/gaon sabha land within three
months,
followed
by
demarcation
and
possession delivery within two months. (Para 812)

Writ petition allowed in part.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for the
State respondents, learned counsel for the
private respondent no.5 and perused the
record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, and
order proposed to be passed hereinunder,
this Court proceeds to decide the present
matter finally at admission stage itself
without calling for the respective affidavits
of the parties, with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties present.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved with the
reference order dated 29.9.2023 passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in
brevity 'DDC') in Case No.0170 of 2023
under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH
Act'), by which chak no.273 belongs to the
petitioner has been disturbed.

4. Facts culled out from the record are
that in provisional Consolidation Scheme
present petitioner had been proposed chak
No. 273, however, respondent No. 5 had
been proposed chak No.80. At the time of
preparation of final consolidation record,
owing to some discrepancy, area having
valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa has been left
to be recorded in the chak of the respondent
no.5.
Meaning
thereby
area
having
valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa was short in
his chak. Having aggrieved with the lesser
valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa in his chak,
respondent no.5 has moved miscellaneous
application to complete the aforesaid
valuation in his chak. After chequered
history of litigation between the parties
upto the Hon'ble High Court, finally
Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in
3 All. Reshma Bi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
815
brevity 'SOC') has referred the matter, vide
order dated 30.8.2023, before DDC to
allow the reference, which has been
approved/accepted by DDC vide its order
impugned dated 29.9.2023. Consequent to
the reference order passed by DDC, chak of
the petitioner has been affected to the
extent of the valuation of Rs.96.11 paisa
which has been shifted/allocated in the
chak of the respondent no.5. Having been
aggrieved with the aforesaid change in his
chak, the instant petition has been filed by
the petitioner.

5. Assailing the order passed by DDC,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted two-fold
submissions;
first,
regarding maintainability of the application
moved by the contesting respondent no.5
under Section 42 A of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH
Act'), that too, after after de-notification
under Section 52 of UPCH Act and second
submission has been advanced with respect
to the jurisdiction of the consolidation
courts to make any modification in the chak
of the petitioner, while exercising their
power in reference proceedings. It is
submitted
that
the
Consolidation
Authorities have got no jurisdiction to
amend the chak of any tenure holder which
has attained finality before completion of
the consolidation operation, thus, the
instant writ petition may be allowed and the
order impugned passed by DDC, being
illegal, unwarranted under the law and
cryptic, be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent
no.5
has
contended
that
respondent no.5 has, in fact, moved misc.
application to correct the area of his chak
which is short in the final consolidation
record, therefore, same can not be treated to
be filed under Section 42 A of UPCH Act.
It is next contended that while passing the
reference order, the DDC has considered
the version of the present petitioner as well
and, accordingly, shifted the chak of the
petitioner on the partial area of plot
no.286/1 Mi which was initially his original
holding. It is further contended that, in fact,
no grievance caused to the petitioner who
has been compensated with the equal
valuation of the area which has been taken
out from his chak. It is next contended that
grievance of the petitioner is imaginary,
therefore, instant writ petition may be
dismissed being misconceived and devoid
of merits.

7. Learned standing counsel, on the
basis of the instructions dated 02.01.2024
duly signed by the SOC, which is taken on
record,
contended
that
Consolidation
Authorities have got right to correct the
error in the consolidation record, therefore,
there is no illegality in rectifying the area
of chak No. 80 belongs to respondent no. 5.
It is further contended that incorrect entry
in land record was rectified under Section
48(3) of UPCH Act, therefore, there is no
error or illegality in the reference order
passed by the DDC.

8. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of
record, it is manifested that owing to
clerical error in the final consolidation
record area having valuation of Rs.178.51
paisa was left to be included/recorded in
the chak of the respondent no.5. To rectify
such error, he has moved a misc.
application. As per case of the petitioner,
aforesaid misc. application was moved
under Section 42 A of UPCH Act after the
denotification of village under Section 52
of
UPCH
Act,
therefore,
the
said
application filed on behalf of respondent
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 5 was not maintainable in the eye of
law.
Learned
counel
for
contesting
respondent no.5 as well as the learned
standing counsel have refuted the filing of
said application for correction of record
under Section 42 A of the UPCH Act and
contended that misc. application moved on
behalf of the respondent no.5 has been
entertained under Section 48(3) of UPCH
Act
and,
accordingly,
error
in
the
consolidation record is rectified by way of
reference. Perusal of record, prima faice, it
appears that reference was finally decided
by DDC in exercise of his power under
Section 48(3) of UPCH Act. There is
nothing on the record to demonstrate that
final
order
has
been
passed
by
Consolidation Officer or SOC under
Section 42-A of UPCH Act.

9. Second submission advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner, with
regard
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
consolidation courts to amend the chak
allotted to the parties while deciding the
reference proceedings, is of paramount
consideration in the instant matter. The
record evinces that to complete the
valuation in chak of the respondent no.5,
which is short by Rs.178.51 paisa,
reference
has
been
made
by
the
Consolidation Officer which was forwarded
by the SOC, vide order dated 30.8.2023.
The DDC, after affording opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned, has
approved
the
aforesaid
reference
in
exercise of its power under Section 48(3) of
UPCH Act with an observation that short
area having valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa in
the chak of respondent no.5 shall be
completed with equal valuation of area
from the bachat land and the chak no.273
belongs to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner has been given area having
valuation of Rs.82.40 paisa (19.18 +
12.68+21.14+19.40) from the bachat land
and the area having valuation of Rs.96.11
paisa from chak no.273 total area having
valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa (82-40 + 9611). Thus, it is evident that area having
valuation of Rs.96.11 paisa has been shifted
from the chak of the petitioner and allotted
in the chak of the respondent no.5.
Consequently, in lieu thereof, present
petitioner has been allotted chak over plot
no.286/1Mi of equal valuation i.e. Rs.96.11
paisa. The learned DDC has observed that
plot no.286/1 Mi is the original holding of
the present petitioner, whereon his guava
trees and boundary wall exists. However,
same has been earmarked as bachat land,
therefore, allotting chak over there will not
cause prejudice to the petitioner. It is
evident that plot no.286/1 Mi which has
been allotted to the petitioner is in fact
recorded as a bachat land, therefore, chak
of petitioner, for the valuation taken out,
has been proposed over the bachat land.

10. In my considered opinion, in
given circumstances of the present case,
while deciding the reference proceedings
under Section 48(3) of UPCH Act, the
DDC has exceeded its jurisdiction to
amend the chak of the petitioner which has
already
been
finalised
before
the
completion of the consolidation operation,
during the chak allotment proceedings
under the UPCH Act. There is no provision
under the law to change/amend the chak of
any chak holder except the provisions as
enunciated under Sections 20 and 21 of
UPCH Act. Any change in the chak of the
chak
holder
without
fulfilling
legal
formalities as required under the law would
amount extra-judicial work which is
unsustainable in the eye of law. The chak
allotment proceedings under Sections 20
and 21 of the UPCH Act amounts judicial
proceedings as enunciated under Section 40
3 All. Reshma Bi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
817
of the UPCH Act. The preparation of
provisional Consolidation scheme under
Section 19-A of UPCH Act, as per
conditions enunciated under Section 19 of
UPCH Act, confirmed under Section 23 of
UPCH
Act
after
chak
allotment
proceedings under Sections 20 and 21 of
the UPCH Act and, accordingly, allotment
orders
are
being
passed.
Once
the
provisional
consolidation
scheme
confirmed and parties came into the
possession under Section 28 of UPCH Act,
and final consolidation scheme came into
force by promulgation of notification under
Section 24 of UPCH Act there is no
justification to make any change in the
chak of any chak holder which has attained
finality. There is no finding returned by the
consolidation courts that the present
petitioner was allotted excess area than that
of the original area held by him. Therefore,
there was no occasion to alter/amend the
chak of the petitioner. The chak finalised
before notification under Section 24 of the
UPCH Act and denotification under Section
52 of the UPCH Act can not be
altered/modified
at
subsequent
stage
merely in order to compensate the other
chak holder whose chak has been found
short of area/valuation for which he was
entitled.

11. In the given circumstances of the
present case it is not disputed that chak of
the petitioner was short of area having
valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa. However,
said short valuation could be completed
from the bachat land. Disturbing/amending
the chak of the petitioner which had
attained finality before the denotification
under Section 52 of UPCH Act is
unsustainable in the eye of law. The
Consolidation Authorities are not expected
to amend/alter the area/valuation of any
chak at later stage, that too, after
denotification under Section 52 of UPCH
Act except in the eventuality that excess
area/valuation has illegally been allotted in
that chak or composition of said chak has
incorrectly been endorsed/mentioned in
final
consolidation
record
or
parties
concerned are agreed upon to such
amendment/alteration, or any chak is
required
to
be
amended/altered
in
compliance/pursuance of any provision
under the UPCH Act/Rules or order passed
by court competent.

12. In this conspectus, as above, the
order passed by DDC under Section 48(3)
of UPCH Act, proposing amendment in the
chak of the petitioner, is liable to be
quashed
and
the
grievance
of
the
respondent no.5, to complete the area of his
chak no.80 having valuation of Rs.178.51
paisa, could be ventilated by adjusting his
chak over the bachat land or any other gaon
sabha land. As such the instant writ petition
succeeds and is allowed in part. The order
dated 29.9.2023 passed by the DDC in
revision no.0170 of 2023 under Section
48(3) of UPCH Act (Kallan and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others) is hereby partly
quashed, so far as it relates to the valuation
of Rs. 96.11 paise of chak No. 273, on the
following conditions:

(i) Revision filed on behalf of
Kallan (respondent no.5) is restored to its
original number and parties are relegated
before the DDC, who shall decide the
revision afresh after affording proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.

(ii)
The
DDC
shall
make
endeavour to complete the short area
having valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa in the
chak No. 80 of the respondent No. 5 from
the bachat land or other gaon sabha
land/public land, as may be justified,
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having area of equal valuation, as far as
possible, nearer/in the vicinity to his
remaining chak. It is made clear that for
better compliance of this condition No. 2,
learned DDC would revisit his reference
order dated 29.9.2023, partly quash by the
order of date, and pass fresh order so as to
do complete justice in favour of respondent
No. 5, who is running from pillar to post
since last several years.

(iv) Having completed the short
area having valuation of Rs.178.51 paisa in
the chak of respondent No. 5, learned DDC
shall make all sincere endeavour to
demarcate the said allotted land in chak No.
80 and deliver the possession thereof to
respondent
no.5
after
removing
obstruction/hindrance, if any, over there.
He can take police protection/help as well
for the purpose, if required.

(v) The DDC shall make a sincere
endeavour to decide the revision, in
accordance
with
law,
expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order and, thereafter, ensure
the demarcation and delivery of possession
thereof as directed above within a period of
two months.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 818
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ B No. 22489 of 2019

Smt. Nandini Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Saryu Prasad Tiwari, U.S. Sahai (Amicus)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., IM Pandey, Krishna Kumar Dubey

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,
1950
-
Section
171
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9-A, 9-B, 11, 12 & 48 - Rule 25-A
of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules -

Succession - Unregistered Will - Validity of
Compromise - Dispute over Land Title

The petitioner challenged the orders dated
05.09.2016 (Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
Ayodhya) and 05.04.2019 (Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Ayodhya), which rejected her
claim over disputed land (Gata No. 76, new No.
66) based on an unregistered Will dated
03.12.1991
and
a
compromise
dated
24.02.1992. The land was originally recorded in
the name of Bhagwan Bux Singh, and after his
death on 04.12.1991, his widow Rajeshwari
Devi's name was recorded under Section 171 of
the 1950 Act. The petitioner, Nandini Devi,
daughter of Bhagwan Bux Singh, claimed rights
based on the Will and a compromise during
consolidation
proceedings.
Held:
The
unregistered Will was not proved as per law
before the authorities under the 1953 Act,
rendering the petitioner's claim baseless. The
compromise was invalid as it violated Rule 25-A
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules,
lacking signatures of Consolidation Committee
members and conferring rights not recognized
by statute. Under Section 171(2) of the 1950
Act, Rajeshwari Devi, as the widow, was the
sole legal heir, and the petitioner, a married
daughter, had no statutory right during her
mother's lifetime. The orders of the SOC and
DDC were upheld, and the petition was
dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

1.
Shiv
Prasad
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Ghazipur, 2006 SCC OnLine All
1485

2. Babu Vs Abdul Shakoor, 2018 (139) R.D. 36