Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127590 Reserved on 26.5.2025 Delivered on 31.7.2025 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 43115 of 2008 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Pilibhit And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- T.S. Dabas,Shyam Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Pathak,Rakesh Pathak Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 151/1 is a big plot having area 0.364 hectare. Out of the aforementioned area of plot No. 151/1 an area of 0.012 hectare was acquired for construction of assam road. The remaining area of plot No. 151/1 area measuring 0.190 hectare has been purchased by the petitioner through two registered sale deeds dated 26.6.2002 and 5.10.1999, plot No. 151/2 area 0.162 hectare was purchased by respondent no.2 on 22.7.2002. Petitioner filed an application before Settlement Officer of Consolidation Pilibheet under Section 5-C (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act with the prayer that petitioner be allowed to construct house over the plot. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 29.10.2004 allowed the petitioner's application with the condition that plot should be levelled and construction should be completed within two months. Proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was initiated which was registered as case No. 91 of 2004- 05 State Vs. Bal Krishna Gupta. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.6.2006 decided the aforementioned objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act rejecting the claim of petitioner and changed the situated of plot. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.6.2006, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as appeal No. 196/ 366. Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 7.6.2006 passed by Consolidation Officer and maintained the earlier sub-division of plot No. 151. Against the appellate order dated 27.7.2007, respondent no.2 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as revision No. 53/238. Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the aforementioned revision and allowed the same setting aside the appellate order dated 27.7.2007 and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.6.2006. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of case and quashing the order dated 25.7.2008 of respondent no.1. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to proceed the case in accordance with law." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 22.8.2008 and granted interim protection to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the disputed plot. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 22.8.2008, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No. 151/2 was sold to respondent no.2 which contains a tubewell/ boring while plot No. 151/1 was adjacent to road but does not contain any tubewell/ boring. He further submitted that plot No. 151/2 is away from the road but revisional Court has failed to consider the aforementioned aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order setting aside the appellate order. He further submitted that revisional Court has set aside the appellate order without assigning sufficient reason. He submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed the order after making spot inspection but Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation without making any spot inspection in the matter. He submitted that orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer are wholly illegal and the appellate order has been passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in proper manner, as such, the impugned revisional order should be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 2/1 to 2/3 submitted that sub-division of plot No. 151 was not rightly made accordingly Consolidation Officer has exercised the jurisdiction under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H Act making sub-division of plot No. 151 which was proper exercise of jurisdiction by Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally interfered with the order of Consolidation Officer, as such, revisional Court has rightly set aside the appellate order and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer. He submitted that Consolidation Officer has rightly adjudicated that adjacent to roadside 1/3rd part of plot No. 151 belong to petitioner and remaining 2/3rd plot belong to respondent no.2. He submitted that proper reason was assigned by Consolidation Officer in making sub-division of plot No. 151 taking the interest of petitioner as well as respondent no.2 into consideration. He submitted that the inspection alleged to be made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal was totally ex-parte, as such, the same cannot be made basis by Appellate Court to allow the appeal filed by petitioner. He further submitted that after the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by Assistant Collector in Stamp case No. 79 of 2004-05, there is no much relevance of recital in the sale deed with respect to situation of plot nearby roadside. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered all the evidence available on record as such, there is no illegality in the impugned revisional order. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner and respondent no.2 are vendees of plot No. 151 by way of registered sale deed. There is also no dispute about the fact that sale deed of both the parties have not been challenged in any Court of law. There is also no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, sub-division of plot No. 151 has been made by the Consolidation Officer but in appeal, the order of Consolidation officer has been set aside and earlier sub- division was maintained. There is also no dispute about the fact that Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision of respondent no.2 setting aside the appellate order and maintained the order of Consolidation Officer regarding sub-division. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the issues framed before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant which are as under:- "1. वववववदत गवटव ससखयव 151 मम बटट वकस पकवर असवकत वकयट जवनट चववहए? 2. वववववदत गवटव ससखयव 151 पर ववदद- पवतववदद शद बवलकक षण गगपव तथव अरवबनद कग मवर सससह वकस वकस पकवर कववबज हह?" 10. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer while deciding the aforementioned issues will also be relevant which is as under:- "ददोनदो पकक्षों कट दवरव पतववलद पर उपलब्ध करवयट सवक्ष्यक्षों तथव बहस सगननट कट बवद मम इस वनश्करर पर पहहसचव हहहूँ वकबहनवमव रसजस्टटद ससखयव 9053 वदनवसक 05.10.99 जदो वनमरल सससह व परमपदत सससह व तस्वदर सससह पगत गण सरदवर बवबव सससह दवरव गवटव ससखयव 151 वम0 रकवव 47 वड० कव 2/3 भवग अरवबनद कग मवर सससह पगत छग टवन सससह कदो बटचव तथव 0.47 वड० कव 1/3 भवग जववहद अलद पगत अब्दगल हमदद कदो बटचव सजसमम रकवव रवषटदय रवजमवगर पर न हदोनव असवकत हह । सजसकव उलटख बहनवमम कट पकष ससखयव 3 पर असवकत हह तथव बहनवमव ससखयव 5150 वदनवसक 26.06.02 कदो जववहद अलद पगत अब्दगल हमदद वन० फफल खवनव दवरव गवटव ससखयव 151 वम0 0.47 वड० कव 1/3 भवग अरवबनद कग मवर सससह पगत छग टवन सससह वनववसद पदलदभदत कट हक मम वकयव हह मम गवटव ससखयव 151 वम० रकवव 0.47 वड0 कट 1/3 भवग कदो रदोड पर हदोनट कट कवरण 50 पवतशत बढवकर स्टवमप फफस अदव कर दद हह कव उलटख हह। शद बवल कक षण गगपव दवरव रसजस्टटद बहनवमव ससखयव 6167 / 22.07.02 कदो करवयव गयव सजस पर सब रसजस्टटवर पदलदभदत कफ ररपदोटर वदनवसक 15.06.04 कट आधवर पर अपर कलटकटर (वव०/रव०) पदलदभदत कट ववद ससखयव 79/04-05 दवरव पवररत आदटश मम गवटव ससखयव 151 वम० जदो शद बवल कक षण गगपव दवरव कय कफ गयद थद, रवषटदय रवजमवगर पर हदोनट कट कवरण 92450 स्टवमप कमद जमव करनट कव आदटश वकयव गयव। सजस पर शद गगपव दवरव टटटजरद चवलवन सट रपयव 10,815.00 वदनवसक 15.07.04 कदो जमव कर वदयव गयव। उपरदोक सट यह ससद हदोतव हह वक शद अरवबनद कग मवर सससह दवरव जदो भभवम वनमरल सससह आवद सट गवटव ससखयव 151 वम० रकवव 0.47 वड0 कव 2/3 भवग कय कफ थद वह बहनवमम कट अनगसवर रवषटदय रवजमवगर पर नहह थद। शद बवलकक षण गगपव दवरव जदो भभवम गवटव ससखयव 151 वम० 0.40 वड० बहनवमव दवरव कय कफ थद उस पर रवषटदय रवजमवगर कव अवतररक स्टवमप शगलक अदव वकयव थव जब वक अरवबनद कग मवर सससह दवर जदो भभवम गवटव ससखयव 151 वम० रकवव 0.47 वड० कव 1/3 भवग जववहद अलद सट कय कफ थद उस पर हद रवषटदय रवजमवगर पर हदोनट कट कवरण अवतररक स्टवमप शगलक वदयव गयव। इस पकवर शद अरवबनद कग मवर सससह गवटव ससखयव 151 वम0 कट पभरब मम रवषटदय रवजमवगर पर कग ल फनट कव 1/3 भवग कट हकदवर हह शटर 2/3 भवग वपछलट भवग मम हह तथव शद बवल कक षण गगपव गवटव ससखयव 151 म 0 कट रवषटदय रवजमवगर कट कग ल फनट कट 2/3 भवग कट वहस्सटदवर हह। उपरदोक कट अनगसवर बटव ससशदोधन वकयव जवनव नयवयदोवचत पतदत हदोतव हह। आदटश गवम पकवडयव ननगवव एत० कट गवटव ससखयव 151 कग ल रकवव 0.364 हट० कट स्थवन पर रवषटदय रवजमवगर कफ तरफ 2/3 फनट लटतट हहए गवटव ससखयव 151/1 रकवव 0.170 हट0 पशश्चम मम असवकत हदो, सजस पर खवतव ससखयव 184 मम रकवव 0.162 हट0 तथव गवटव ससखयव 466 मम रकवव 0.008 हट0 असवकत हदो शटर पभरब मम 1/3 फनट लटतट हहए नवसकसजत गवटव ससखयव 151/1 कट पभरब और दवकण ओर गवटव ससखयव 151/2 रकवव 0.194 हट0 असवकत हदो सजसमम खवतव ससखयव 466 रकवव 0.004 हट० तथव खवतव ससखयव 149 मम रकवव 0.190 हट0 असवकत हदो । तदनगसवर भभ वचत तथव जदोत चकबनदद आकवर पत 2 क ससशदोसधत वकयव जवयट । पतववलद ववद अमलदरवमद दवसखल दफतर हदो । वदनवसक 07.06.2006 हस्तवकर अपठनदय चकबनदद असधकवरद पदलदभदत" 11. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer as quoted above fully demonstrate that the interest of petitioner as well as private respondents has properly been taken into consideration while making sub- division of plot No. 151 and holding that in what manner petitioner and private respondents are in possession. Consolidation Officer has taken into consideration the evidences adduced by the parties. The mandatory provisions contained under Rule 26(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules was complied with by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal filed by petitioner has set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and maintained the sub-division of plot No. 151 as mentioned in C.H. Form 2-Ka. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act has examined the entire issue and has held that Consolidation Officer has rightly exercised the jurisdiction. Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded the finding of fact that bandobasti map of 1366 fasli which is on record demonstrate that plot No. 151 belonging to Baldev Raj is adjacent to road which proves that plot belonging to respondent no.2, Bal Krishna Gupta is situated adjacent to road (National Highway). 12. Considering the finding recorded by consolidation authorities, there is no illegality in the judgement passed by Consolidation Officer which has been maintained in revision. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned revisional order dated 25.7.2008 passed by respondent no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pilibhit. 14. The writ petition is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad