# Surendra Bahadur Singh & Ors v. Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra Bhawan Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1318
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 382 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-bahadur-singh-ors-v-chakbandi-aayukt-u-p-saptam-tal-indra-bhawan-lko-51800
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Consolidations of Holdings
Act,1953-Sections 10,20,23,52,9A(2)-The
petitioners claimed that proceeding with
the
notifications/publications
u/s
10,20,23,52 of the act without resolving
their objections u/s 9A(2) would violate
their legal rights-Held, the court ruled
against
the
petitioners
emphasizing
section 52(2) and Rule 109(A)(1) provide
mechanisms
to
address
unresolved
objections
even
after
publication
or
notification-hence,
petitioners
rights
would not be prejudiced by the issuance
of the notifications.(Para 1 to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

1318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
right is nonest in the eyes of law for the
reason it is an admitted case of the parties
that Pandoi and Ram Lakhan are the cotenure holders of the gatas of Khata No.
112 the compromise / agreement was
signed only by Ram Lakhan and it was not
signed by the Pandoi who had preferred the
revision, the petitioners have failed to
establish their title / ownership on the gatas
of Khata No.112 from the revenue records
as discussed above and this Court finds no
illegality in the revisional order.

21. In view of the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
discussion made hereinabove, the writ
petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1318
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-B No. 382 of 2024

Surendra Bahadur Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra
Bhawan Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sandeep Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Consolidations of Holdings
Act,1953-Sections 10,20,23,52,9A(2)-The
petitioners claimed that proceeding with
the
notifications/publications
u/s
10,20,23,52 of the act without resolving
their objections u/s 9A(2) would violate
their legal rights-Held, the court ruled
against
the
petitioners
emphasizing
section 52(2) and Rule 109(A)(1) provide
mechanisms
to
address
unresolved
objections
even
after
publication
or
notification-hence,
petitioners
rights
would not be prejudiced by the issuance
of the notifications.(Para 1 to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Tiwari,
learned counsel for petitioner as well as
Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned
Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has
been preferred for issuing direction to the
Consolidation Officer, District Amethi, not
to make any notification/publication of
Section 10, Section 22 and Section 27 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1953) and
to restrain the Consolidation Officer (C.O)
to prepare the final documents with a
further prayer that till the decision in the
revision/Review, no publication shall be
made under Section 10 , 19, 29 and 23 of
the Act, 1953.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners
has submitted that the petitioners inherited
the property of his maternal grandparents
(after
the
demise
of
their
maternal
grandfather in the year 1976 and maternal
grandmother
in
the
year
1986).
A
notification has been issued under Section
4A(2), against which the petitioners have
filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of
the Act, 1953. The objection of the
petitioners
was
not
decided
by
the
Consolidation Officer, and the petitioners
had no other option except to approach this
Court by filing writ petition No. 1204 of
2022, (Surendra Bahadur Singh versus
4 All. Surendra Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vs. Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal
 Indra Bhawan Lko. & Ors.
1319
District Magistrate District Amethi and
others). The said writ petition was finally
disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2022,
with a direction to respondent no. 2 to
consider and decide the pending objections
of the petitioners as early as possible.
Despite the direction of this Court, the
objections of the petitioners are still
pending before the Consolidation Officer.

4. It is further submitted that
without deciding the objections of the
petitioners filed under Section 9A(2) of the
Act, 1953, the notification has been issued
under Sections 10, 20 and 23 of the Act,
1953 and submitted the final documents for
the purposes of publication under Section
52. The said action on the part of
Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 2
is against the statutory provisions wherein
it has been provided that after deciding all
the objections, the publication be made
under Sections 10, 20 and 23 and forward
the final documents for the purpose of
publication under Section 52 of the Act,
1953.

5. It is further submitted that after
the publication under Section 52, the
consolidation operations will be closed
without deciding the objections of the
petitioners which will affect the legal right
of the petitioners as provided under the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.

6. On the other hand, learned State
Counsel has submitted that by mere
pendency of the objection of the petitioner,
the notification/publication under Section
52 cannot be stopped for the reason that the
rights of the petitioners are protected under
Sub-Section 2 of Section 52 of the Act,
1953 read with Rule 109 (A)(1) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954
(hereinafter referred as Rules, 1954).
7. After hearing learned counsel
for parties, going through the records of the
case, the objections regarding title of the
land have been filed by petitioners under
Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953. The
submission of learned counsel for petitioner
that as per the provisions of the act,
particularly Section 10, wherein it has been
provided that the Annual Register shall be
revised on the basis of the orders passed
under Sub-Section 2 of Section 9A which
has not been decided yet, so any
consequential
proceedings
by
making
publication under Section 10, 20 and 23
will deprive the petitioner of his lawful
claim is not tenable and acceptable as per
Sub-Section 2 of Section 52 of the Act,
1953, read with Rule 109 (A)(1) Rules,
1954.

8. For convenience, Section 52(2)
of the Act, 1953 and Rules 109 (A)(1) of
Rules, 1954 are quoted herein below:-

'Section 52(2) of Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953:- Notwithstanding
anything contained in Sub-Section (1), any
order passed by a Court of competent
jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the
provision of the Constitution of India, or in
cases or proceedings pending under this
Act on the date of issue of the notification
under sub-section (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.
Rule
109
(A)(1)
of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954:-
Orders passed in cases covered by subsection (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
1320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the sub-division, the Tahsildar, the NaibTahsildar, 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.'

9. From the conjoint reading of the
section and the rule as quoted above, the
position as far as the rights of the
petitioners, which is very clear that even
after the publication under Section 52 for
closing the consolidation operations in the
village will not be affected as Sub-Section
2 of Section 52 of the Act, 1953 provides
that in cases or proceedings pending under
this Act on the date of issuance of the
notification under Sub-Section 1 shall be
given effect to by such authorities as may
be
prescribed
and
the
consolidation
operation shall, for the purposes be deemed
to have not been closed and Rule 109A(1)
provides the authorities who shall give
effect to the orders passed by the
Consolidation authorities.

10. The rights of the petitioners are
protected under the statute itself and mere
pendency
of
the
objections
of
the
petitioners under Section 9A(2) of the Act,
1953 will not come in the way of issuing a
notification under Section 52(1) of the Act,
1953 regarding closing of the consolidation
operations in the village or the villages and
by notification under Section 52 of the Act,
1953 or publication under Sections 10, 20,
23 will not prejudice any of the rights of
the petitioner as already mentioned above.
The apprehension of the petitioners that
publication under Section 10, Section 20,
Section 23 and Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 would
adversely affect the rights, has no basis as
sufficient protection in regard to the
pending cases under Section 52(2) of the
Act, 1953 read with Rule 109A(1) of the
Rules, 1954.

11. In view of the facts,
circumstances
and
discussion
made
hereinabove, the present writ petition being
devoid of merit is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1320
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-B No. 694 of 2012

Jageshwar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Piyush Chandra Agarwal, Abdul Shadab Khan,
Abhinav Trivedi, Durgesh Kumar Rajput, Jay
Prakash Singh, Paresh Mishra, Parijat Mishra
Belavra, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Rajendra Pratap
Singh, Ravi Prakash Mishra, Sameer Kumar,
Satyendra Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Amit Tripathi, Anand Mani Tripathi,
Mohd. H.U. Ansari, Shashendra Pratap Singh,
Sher Bahadur Yadav

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,1953-Section
48-The
petitioners
claimed property rights over Plot No.194
recorded
in
the
name
of
their
grandmother
under
successionRespondent no. 4 claimed rights as
Maika's brother in law, asserting she was
issueless-Respondent 5 to 10 claimed