# Smt. Chandravati Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 393
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-19
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 4474 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-chandravati-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52349
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A (1) -
U.P.Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 -
Section 52 - Plea for expeditious disposal
of application - Petitioner filed application
under Rule 109 after more than 30 years,
since impugned order dated 24.04.1993, a
certified copy whereof has not been
produced
by
petitioner
along
with
application for execution of order - The
photocopy of said order filed along with
execution application was not admissible -
Original record of proceedings in court of
Consolidation Officer stands weeded out -
Photocopy of order appears to be forged.
(Para 6)

A combined reading of Section 52 (2) of
Act, 1953 and Rule 109-A (2) of Rules
,1954 makes it clear that only orders
passed by Court of competent jurisdiction
in cases of writs filed under provisions of
Constitution of India, or in cases of
proceedings pending under Act on date of
issue of notification under sub-section (1),
shall be given effect to - Nothing on
record to indicate any writ petition was
filed or proceedings were pending on date
of notification u/s 52 (1) of Act, 1953 - In
these circumstances, said order cannot be
implemented
long
after
closure
of
consolidation operations - Declined to give
direction. (Para 9, 10)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Chandrajeet Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2009 SCC
OnLine All 2446 ; (2009) 108 RD 190

## Text

9 All. Smt. Chandravati Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
393
alternative remedy is concerned, the Beema
Lok Pal has been constituted by a
notification
issued
by
the
Central
Government and it has not been constituted
under any statute. The remedy before
Insurance Lok Pal is not a statutory remedy
and it does not bar the petitioner's right to
file a claim before the Permanent Lok
Adalat.

7. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed. The order dated 01.05.2024 is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the
Permanent Lok Adalat Lucknow for
passing fresh orders regarding admission of
the claim in accordance with law, keeping
in view the observations made in this order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 393
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4474 of 2024

Smt. Chandravati Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A (1) -
U.P.Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 -
Section 52 - Plea for expeditious disposal
of application - Petitioner filed application
under Rule 109 after more than 30 years,
since impugned order dated 24.04.1993, a
certified copy whereof has not been
produced
by
petitioner
along
with
application for execution of order - The
photocopy of said order filed along with
execution application was not admissible -
Original record of proceedings in court of
Consolidation Officer stands weeded out -
Photocopy of order appears to be forged.
(Para 6)

A combined reading of Section 52 (2) of
Act, 1953 and Rule 109-A (2) of Rules
,1954 makes it clear that only orders
passed by Court of competent jurisdiction
in cases of writs filed under provisions of
Constitution of India, or in cases of
proceedings pending under Act on date of
issue of notification under sub-section (1),
shall be given effect to - Nothing on
record to indicate any writ petition was
filed or proceedings were pending on date
of notification u/s 52 (1) of Act, 1953 - In
these circumstances, said order cannot be
implemented
long
after
closure
of
consolidation operations - Declined to give
direction. (Para 9, 10)

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Chandrajeet Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2009 SCC
OnLine All 2446 ; (2009) 108 RD 190

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan
Srivastava, the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Section 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has sought a
direction to the opposite party no. 2Consolidation
Officer
(Purana)
for
expeditious disposal of Case No. 65 of
2024, which is an application filed under
Rule 109-A (1) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act Rules, 1954 (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'the Rules of
1954'), for execution of an order dated
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.04.1993 passed by the Consolidation
Officer, Nawabganj in Case No. 3939.

3. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the
learned Standing Counsel for the State of
U.P. has raised a preliminary objection that
the application under Rule 109-A has been
filed after more than 30 years since passing
of the alleged order dated 24.04.1993, a
certified copy whereof has not been
produced by the petitioner along with the
application for execution of the order. The
photocopy of the order dated 24.04.1993
filed alongwith the execution application is
not admissible. In these circumstances, the
photocopy of the irder dated 24.04.1993
prima facie appears to be forged. The
original record of the proceedings in the
court of Consolidation Officer stands
weeded out. There is no method to verify
the genuineness of the petitioner's claim
regarding
order
dated
24.04.1993
in
absence of a certified copy of the order
dated 24.04.1993 having been filed by the
petitioner along with his application dated
07.11.2023.

4. The learned Standing Counsel
relied on a decision of this Court in case of
Chandrajeet Ram v. State of U.P., 2009
SCC OnLine All 2446 = (2009) 108 RD
190, in which a coordinate bench of this
Court has recorded that the Court is daily
coming across such matters where people
come out with certified copies of orders
alleged to have been passed 25 to 40 years
before by Consolidation Courts and start
asserting that the order must be mutated. In
most of the cases such certified copies are
forged. In normal course of things if an
order is passed by Consolidation Court in
favour of a person then either it is
implemented forthwith in normal course or
he will immediately take steps for getting
that mutated in the revenue records. A wait
of more than 12 years always raises a grave
doubt regarding the genuineness of the
order sought to be enforced. In most of
such cases certified copies of non existent
orders
are
manufactured
after
the
loss/weeding out of original records. It is
also the experience of the court that Rule
109-A is being utterly misused. It is not
meant for rampant use. It cannot be
invoked after notification under section 52
of the Act to enforce orders passed before
the notification.

5. The learned counsel for the
petitioner could not give any reply to the
aforesaid legal submissions raised by the
learned Standing Counsel.

6. The application filed by the
petitioner under Rule 109 has been filed
after more than 30 years since the alleged
order dated 24.04.1993, a certified copy
whereof has not been produced by the
petitioner along with the application for
execution of the order. The photocopy of
the order dated 24.04.1993 filed alongwith
the execution application is not admissible.
The original record of the proceedings in
the court of Consolidation Officer stands
weeded out. In these circumstances, there is
no method to verify the genuineness of the
petitioner's claim regarding order dated
24.04.1993 in absence of a certified copy of
the order dated 24.04.1993 having been
filed by the petitioner along with his
application dated 07.11.2023.

7. Further, Section 52 of the U. P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
ct,
1953
provides as follows: -

"52.
Close
of
consolidation
operations. - (1) As soon as may be, after
fresh maps and records have been
prepared under sub-section (1) of Section
9 All. Smt. Chandravati Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
395
27, the State Government shall issue a
notification in the Official Gazette that the
consolidation operations have been closed
in the unit and the village or villages
forming a part of the unit shall then cease
to be under consolidation operations:

Provided that the issue of the
notification under this section shall not
affect the powers of the State Government
to fix, distribute and record the cost of
operations under this Act.

(1-A) The notification issued
under sub-section (1) shall be published
also
in
a
daily
newspaper
having
circulation in the area and in such other
manner as may be considered proper.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), any order
passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction
in cases of writs filed under the provisions
of the Constitution of India, or in cases of
proceedings pending under this Act on the
date of issue of the notification under subsection (1), shall be given effect to by such
authorities, as may be prescribed and the
consolidation operation shall, for that
purpose, be deemed to have not been
closed.
* * *"

8. Rule 109-A of the Rules of 1954
provides as follows: -

"109A. - (1) Orders passed in
cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section
52 shall be given effect to by the
consolidation authorities, authorised in this
behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42.
In case there be no such authority the
Assistant Collector, incharge of the subdivision, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar,
the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of
the area to which the case relates shall,
respectively, perform the functions and
discharge the duties of the Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officer,
the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer,
the
Consolidator
and
the
Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the
purpose of giving effect to the orders
aforesaid.

(2) If for the purpose of giving
effect to any order referred to in sub-rule
(1) it becomes necessary to reallocate
affected chaks, necessary orders may be
passed by the 28 Consolidation Officer, or
the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after
affording proper opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned.

(3) Any person aggrieved by the
order of the Consolidation Officer, or the
Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within
15 days of the order passed under sub-rule
(2), file an appeal before the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant
Collector incharge of the sub-division, as
the case may be, who shall decide the
appeal
after
affording
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties
concerned, which shall be final.

(4) In case delivery of possession
becomes necessary as a result of orders
passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3),
as the case may be, the provisions of Rules
55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be
followed."

9. A combined reading of Section 52
(2) of the Act of 1953 and Rule 109-A (2)
of the Rules of 1954 makes it clear that
only the orders passed by a Court of
competent jurisdiction in cases of writs
filed
under
the
provisions
of
the
Constitution of India, or in cases of
proceedings pending under this Act on
the date of issue of the notification under
sub-section (1), shall be given effect to.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner
could not dispute that the consolidation
operations stand closed long ago. There is
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nothing on record to indicate that any writ
petition was filed in this matter or any
proceedings under the Act were pending on
the date of notification under Section 52 (1)
of the act of 1953. In these circumstances,
the order dated 24.04.1993 cannot be
implemented long after closure of the
consolidation operations.

10. When this Court is of the view
that the order dated 24.04.1993 cannot be
implemented, there is no occasion for this
Court to give a direction for expeditious
disposal
of
the
application
for
implementation of the order filed after
more than 30 years since passing of the
order.

11. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5133 of 2023

Harmeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Desh Deepak Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ratnesh
Chandra,
Ishan
Singh
Popli,
Madhav Om

Counsel for the Respondent:
Gopesh Tripathi

Civil Law- The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban
Premises
Tenancy
Act,
2021-
Section-38(1)-Act of 2021 confers jurisdiction
on rent authority/rent tribunal to entertain
petitions filed by landlord or eviction/ejectment
of tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and
damages etc. but there is no provision in the
aforesaid act which confers jurisdiction on the
rent authority/rent tribunal to entertain a suit
for perpetual injunction filed by a tenant against
his dispossession otherwise then in accordance
with the law. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by
tenants against their landlords, is not barred by
the provisions of the Act of 2021 and the Civil
Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain
the suits for injunction even after enactment of
the Act of 2021.Impugned order set aside.
(Para 10)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Gopesh Tripathi, the learned counsel for
the opposite party.

2. The learned counsel for the
opposite party does not propose to file a
counter affidavit and the petition is being
heard finally with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.

3. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged
validity of the judgment and order dared
15.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Court No.16
Raebareli in Civil Miscellaneous Case
No.630 of 2022, whereby the suit filed by
the petitioner for the relief of perpetual
injunction
restraining
the
defendant/landlord from evicting him from
a property in his tenancy, otherwise than in
accordance with the law, has been
dismissed at the admission stage on the
ground that Section 38(1) of the U.P
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy