# Suraj Singh @ Suraj Dev v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 3319 of 2022
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suraj-singh-suraj-dev-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50999
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - Consolidation of Holdings
- Orders regarding Chak allotment under
U.P.C.H. Act under challenge - Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 19 - Conditions for
Consolidation Scheme, Section 21(2) -
Appeals , Section 48 - Revisional Powers
of Deputy Director - Compact area -
Source of irrigation - Rectangulation -
Chak Objection - Chak Appeal - Chak
revision - Tenure holder be allotted Chak
as far as possible on his original largest
holding
considering
the
source
of
irrigation of tenure holder copuled with
the process of rectangulation of Chak of
tenure holder.(Para -11)

Petitioner, holder of Chak Nos. 799 and 800 -
challenged allocation of chaks made under
consolidation proceedings - objection was
partially allowed by Consolidation Officer -
subsequent appeal and revision were dismissed
- sought allotment on his original holdings (536
and 539) - claiming that current allocation (496
and others) was unfit for cultivation due to its Lshape - which was denied by authorities. (Para
2, 4)

HELD: - Petitioner's allotment of Chak to his
source of irrigation was adjusted on plot no.

## Text

11 All. Suraj Singh @ Suraj Dev Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
extraordinary
remedy,
which
is
essentially
discretionary,
although
founded on legal injury. It is perfectly
open for the writ court, exercising this
flexible power to pass such orders as
public interest dictates & equity projects.
The
legal
formulations
cannot
be
enforced divorced from the realities of
the fact situation of the case. While
administering law, it is to be tempered
with equity and if the equitable situation
demands after setting right the legal
formulations, not to take it to the logical
end, the High Court would be failing in
its duty if it does not notice equitable
consideration and mould the final order
in
exercise
of
its
extraordinary
jurisdiction. Any other approach would
render the High Court a normal court of
appeal which it is not."

 (Emphasis supplied)

19.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
equitable jurisdiction of this Court is being
exercised and possession of petitioners only
is protected. Impugned judgment and
orders dated 24.09.1992 and 15.07.1981 are
interfered and accordingly set aside.
However, it is directed that State will
conduct a fresh allotment proceedings and
will include contesting-respondents, if still
they are eligible for allotment under
relevant provisions, including others also.
Said exercise will be concluded within a
period of six months from today, if there is
no legal impediment.

20.
With
aforesaid
observations/
directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 3319 of 2022

Suraj Singh @ Suraj Dev ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Dinesh Rai,
Manvendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri Krishan Yadav, Vishnu Murti
Tripathi

(A) Land Law - Consolidation of Holdings
- Orders regarding Chak allotment under
U.P.C.H. Act under challenge - Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Section 19 - Conditions for
Consolidation Scheme, Section 21(2) -
Appeals , Section 48 - Revisional Powers
of Deputy Director - Compact area -
Source of irrigation - Rectangulation -
Chak Objection - Chak Appeal - Chak
revision - Tenure holder be allotted Chak
as far as possible on his original largest
holding
considering
the
source
of
irrigation of tenure holder copuled with
the process of rectangulation of Chak of
tenure holder.(Para -11)

Petitioner, holder of Chak Nos. 799 and 800 -
challenged allocation of chaks made under
consolidation proceedings - objection was
partially allowed by Consolidation Officer -
subsequent appeal and revision were dismissed
- sought allotment on his original holdings (536
and 539) - claiming that current allocation (496
and others) was unfit for cultivation due to its Lshape - which was denied by authorities. (Para
2, 4)

HELD: - Petitioner's allotment of Chak to his
source of irrigation was adjusted on plot no.
496. No illegality in allotment of the Chak to the
petitioner by Consolidation Officer. Consolidation
Officer dismissed an appeal to allocate the Chak
to
other
holdings.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation also dismissed a revision under
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. No scope of
interference against the impugned orders. (Para
-10,12)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

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

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K.
Yadav as well as Sri V.M. Tripathi, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 and
Sri
Ashutosh
Kumar
Rai,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner is Chak Holder of Chak No. 799
& 800. Respondent No. 5 is Chak Holder
No. 65. The Assistant Consolidation
Officer has proposed single Chak to the
petitioner on plot nos. 489M, 496M, 505M.
Against
the
proposal
of
Assistant
Consolidation Officer the Chak Objection
was filed by petitioner, which was decided
by Consolidation Officer vide order dated
11.02.2020 allotting the Plot No. 496, in
which his source of irrigation is situated
along with the Plot No. 505. Petitioner was
also allotted Plot No. 500, 499 under the
order of Consolidation Officer dated
11.02.2020.
Against
the
order
of
Consolidation Officer petitioner filed Chak
Appeal before the Settlement Officer
Consolidation claiming that he should be
allotted Chak over plot nos. 536 & 539 in
place of plot nos. 499 & 500. The
aforementioned
appeal
filed
by
the
petitioners was dismissed vide order dated
23.12.2020.
Petitioner
challenged
the
appellate order by way of revision under
Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, which was
dismissed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation vide order dated 15.09.2022.
Hence, this writ-petition for following
reliefs:-

"I) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 11.02.2020
passed by respondent no. 4 in so far it
relates to Chak no. 800, order dated
23.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 in
Appeal No. 40 of 2020, under section
21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated
15.9.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 in
Revision
No.
175/2021530126000033,
under section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act.

II) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to give effect to the
impugned orders and direct the parties to
maintain status quo on spot.

III) Issue any other writ order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

IV) To award the cost of writ
petition."

3. This Court entertained the matter
and granted interim order on 01.12.2022. In
pursuance of the order dated 01.12.2022
pleadings have been exchanged between
the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Chak Appeal filed by
petitioner against the illegal order of Chak
allotment passed by Consolidation Officer
has been dismissed in arbitrary manner
without considering the demand of the
petitioner in accordance with law. He
further submitted that Settlement Officer
Consolidation has not considered the
provisions of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H.
Act in proper manner and dismissed the
appeal in arbitrary manner. He next
submitted that the revision filed against the
11 All. Suraj Singh @ Suraj Dev Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
213
appellate order has also been dismissed
illegally under the impugned order. He
further submitted that the shop of the Chak
allotted
to
the
petitioner
under
the
impugned order has been become 'L' shape,
which is not fit for cultivation. He further
submitted that in the impugned orders, it is
wrongly mentioned that the Chak, which
has been allotted to the petitioner by
Consolidation Officer is rectangular in
shape. He placed the 'Chak Map' of the
village in order to demonstrate that the
shape of the Chak of the petitioner has
become 'L' shape and the same is not fit for
cultivation. He submitted that petitioner has
claimed the allotment of the Chak on plot
nos. 536 and 539, which are the original
holdings of the petitioner, as such the relief
claimed by petitioner cannot be denied by
the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He
further
submitted
that
the
impugned
appellate order and revisional orders are
liable to be set aside and the matter be sent
back before the appellate Court to decide
the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

5. On the other hand, Sri V.K. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 5 to 7 submitted that
petitioner has filed the Chak Objection
claiming the allottment of plot in which his
source
of
irrigation
is
situated
and
Consolidation Officer has allowed the
claim of the petitioner, as such petitioner
can not file appeal claiming further relief in
the matter. He submitted that petitioner has
not impleaded the necessary parties in the
instant petition as well as before the
Consolidation authorities, as such the writ
petition filed by the petitioner cannot be
entertained.
He
next
submitted
that
petitioner's Chak is not effected in any
manner by the Chak of respondent nos. 5 to
7. He further submitted that the schedule
which is attached along with the order of
Consolidation Officer fully demonstrates
that petitioner's Chak/claim is not effected
in any manner from the Chak of respondent
nos. 5 to 7. He next submitted that it is not
necessary that every original holdings be
allotted to the tenure holder concerned in
the alottment of the Chak proceedings. He
submitted that Chak map annexed along
with writ petition is not correct, as such no
interference is required in the matter and
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
State submitted impugned orders have been
passed
considering
the
provision
of
U.P.C.H. Act, as such no interference is
required in the matter.

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

8. There is no dispute about the facts
that Chak Objection filed by the petitioner
was allowed, but Chak Appeal filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed and the Chak
revision filed by petitioners has also been
dismissed under the impugned orders.

9.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, perusal
of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act will be
relevant which is as under:-

"[19. Conditions to be fulfilled
by a Consolidation Scheme. - (1) A
Consolidation Scheme shall fulfill the
following conditions, namely, -

(a) the rights and liabilities of a
tenure-holder, as recorded in the register
prepared under Section 10, are, subject to
the deductions, if any, made on account of
contributions to public purposes under
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Act, secured in the lands allotted to
him;

(b) the valuation of plots allotted
to a tenure-holder, subject to deductions,
if any, made on account of contributions
to public purposes under this Act is equal
to the valuation of plots originally held by
him:

Provided that, except with the
permission
of
the
Director
of
Consolidation, the area of the holding or
holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall
not differ from the area of his original
holding or holdings by more than twenty
five per cent of the latter;

(c) the compensation determined
under the provisions of this Act, or the
rules framed thereunder, is awarded -

(1) to the tenure-holder -

(i) for trees, wells and other
improvements, originally held by him and
allotted to another tenure-holders, and

(ii) for land contributed by him
for public purposes;

(2) to the Gaon Sabha, or any
other local authority, as the case may be,
for development, if any, effected by it in or
over land belonging to it and allotted to a
tenure-holder;

(d) the principles laid down in
the Statement of Principles are followed;

(e) every tenure-holder is, as far
as possible, allotted a compact area at the
place where he holds the largest part of
his holding :

Provided that no tenure-holder
may be allotted more chaks than three,
except with the approval in writing of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation:

Provided
further
that
no
consolidation made shall be invalid for the
reason merely that the number of chaks
allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three;

(f) every tenure-holder is, as far
as possible, allotted the plot on which
exists his private source of irrigation or
any other improvement, together with an
area in the vicinity equal to the valuation
of the plots originally held by him there;
and

(g) every tenure-holder is, as far
as possible, allotted chaks in conformity
with the process of rectangulation in
rectangulation units.

(2) A Consolidation Scheme
before it is made final under Section 23,
shall be provisionally drawn up in
accordance with the provisions of Section
19-A.]"

10. Perusal of the C.H. Form 23 of the
petitioner, contesting respondents provision
of Section 19 of U.P.C.H. Act as well as
the order passed by the Consolidation
Officer in the Chak Objection filed by the
petitioner fully demonstrate that petitioner
has been adjusted on plot no. 496, in which
his source of irrigation is situated, as such
there is no illegality in allotment of the
Chak to the petitioner by Consolidation
Officer. Further, filing of Chak appeal by
the petitioner claiming the allotment of
Chak on his other original holdings cannot
be
allowed
by
the
Consolidation
Authorities. The appeal filed by the
petitioner has rightly been dismissed and
the revision has also been dismissed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation under
Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

11. Law relating to allotment of Chak
under U.P.C.H. Act is well settled that
tenure holder be allotted Chak as far as
possible on his original largest holding
considering the source of irrigation of
tenure holder copuled with the process of
rectangulation of Chak of tenure holder
which has been followed in the instant
matter
as
far
as
possible.
11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
215

12. Considering the entire facts an
circumstances of the case, there is no scope
of interference against the impugned orders
passed by Consolidation Authorities in the
Chak allotment proceedings.

13. The writ-petition is dismissed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 215
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No 1538 of 2023
Alongwith other connected cases

Nandan Singh Bisht ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vaibhav Kalia, Vidhu Bhushan Kalia

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Ajai Kumar, Vivek Kumar Rai

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302,
120-B, 34 & 427 - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 30 - The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
-
Section
177
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
144
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9 -
F.I.R.
lodged
with
allegations
that
farmers and labours of local area were
protesting
peacefully,
main
accused
reached on spot with four wheelers along
with unknown persons armed with
weapons - Said accused started firing and
moving ahead at high speed, crushed
crowd - Due to firearm injury, one person
died on spot, some pedestrians received
injuries - In said incident, four farmers
died. (Para 19, 20)
Contention by applicants, they are not
named in FIR, their name came up during
investigation
in
statement
of
eyewitnesses - Cross-version to instant case
was
registered
by
co-accused
with
allegations that protestors attacked them
- Postmortem report from side of accused
persons, indicates cause of death was
antemortem injuries received by blunt
object, as they were beaten to death by
farmers. (Para 21, 22, 23)

Case was later on modified from gunshot
injuries to injuries caused due to crushing
by vehicles - Out of 114 witnesses, only
seven examined. (Para 26, 30)

Held, regarding criminal antecedents, it
was not case of St.that applicants might
adversely influence investigation or might
intimidate witnesses - No exceptional
circumstances shown to deny bail to
accused, hence, bail on ground of criminal
antecedent can't be deny. (Para 53)

Cross-version
to
present
case,
acknowledged by both parties - Main
accused, granted bail by Supreme Court -
Significant number of witnesses to be
examined, no likelihood that trial will
conclude in near future - Applicants have
not
misused
interim
bail
previously
granted. (Para 56)

Bail applications allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash & ors., (2004) 13
SCC 292, (Para 23, 24)

2. U.O.I.Vs K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712

3. Padam Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC
621, (Para 5)

4. Vijayee Singh Vs St. of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190

5. Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha Vs St. of U.P., (1992)
SCC OnLine All 871, (Para 60)

6. Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40,
(Para 18)