Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26710 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 418 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhagwandei And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Unnao And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadava,Ram Suphal,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 1/Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "DDC"); the order dated 08.05.2008 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) passed by opposite party no. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "SOC") and the order(s) dated 16.04.2004 and 25.02.2005 (Annexure No.3 and 4 to the petition) passed by opposite party no.3/Consolidation Officer (Final Records), Unnao, in the proceedings instituted under U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). 3. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for disposal of present petition at the admission stage, are as under :- (i) Property in dispute is the land recorded in Form CH 23 Part I at Sl. No. 826 (chak no. 826) is situated at Hamlet- Akohari, Pargana - Moranwa, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao. (ii) Undisputedly in the aforesaid document the name of one Parsadi S/o Beni as sirdaar was indicated, . (iii) During the consolidation proceedings in the village, on 06.05.2002 Ram Khelavan (respondent no.4) preferred an application for recording his name in the revenue records of chak no. 826 being son/successor of Parsadi S/o Beni. (iv) On 23.05.2002, one Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) filed his objections whereby he claimed his rights over property in dispute. (v) For the purposes of recording the name in the revenue records the Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) claimed himself as second son of Parsadi S/o Beni. In other words Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) pleaded that Ram Khelavan is his real brother and both are entitled to one half each in the property in dispute. (vi) The CO, after considering the facts and evidence on record, adjudicated the claim of the parties namely Ram Khelavan and Ram Autar vide order dated 16.04.2004 passed in the case registered as Case No. 1933 (Ram Khelavan Vs. Parsadi), under Section 12 of the Act of 1953. Vide order dated 16.04.2004 the CO provided rights to Ram Khelavan (respondent no.4). (vii) For the purposes of adjudication of the claim of the parties namely Ram Khelavan and Ram Autar four issues were framed by CO which are as under :- "1. कयय वयदद रयमखखलयवन ममतक परसयदद कय तनहय पपत हह? 2. कयय आपततकतयर रयम औतयर भद परसयदद कय पपत हह? 3. ममतक परसयदद कय वहधयननक उतरयतधकयरद ककन हह? 4. कयय रयमऔतयर ममतक परसयदद कय वहधयननक उतरयतधकयरद हह।" . (viii) Following documents were filed by Ram Khelavan before the CO to establish his rights :- "1. Form CH 23 Part 1 Sl. No. 826 ( उदरण जज.च.आ.प. 23 भयग -1 कमयमक 826) 2. Form CH 23 Part 1 Sl. No. 275/38 ( उदरण जज.च.आ.प. 23 भयग -1 कमयमक 275/38)" . (ix) Ram Autar also filed the following documents to establish his claim. "1. Form CH 23 Part 1 Sl. No. 826 ( उदरण जज.च.आ.प. 23 भयग -1 कमयमक 826 2. Copy of parivar register issued by Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari dated 20.07.2002 ( गयम पमचययत नवकयस अतधकयरद दयरय जयरद पररवयर रतजसटर कक नकल नदनयमक 20.7.02) 3. Electoral Roll of the year 1995 ( ननवयरचक नयमयवलद वरर 1995) 4. Voter ID card issued by Election Commission dated 01.05.1995 ( ननवयरचन आयजग दयरय जयरद फजटज पहचयन पत नदनयमक 1.5.95) 5. Revenue Receipts ( आवपयसद कक रसददद - 11 नकतय)" . (x) It would be apt to indicate that statements of witnesses were also recorded. (xi) Before this Court, copies of the statement(s) of Ayodhya S/o Mahavir and Nankau S/o Babuhave been placed on record. Though statement(s) of all the witnesses ought to have been placed on record. (xii) According to the statement of Ayodhya S/o Mahavir, the witness produced by Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners), the Ram Autar was in possession of 1/2 of the property in dispute for a period of about twenty five years for the reason that according to him the Parsadi S/o Beni died twenty-five years back and since then both (Ram Autar and Ram Khelavan ) came into possession of the property in dispute. However to establish this period of possession the documentary evidence was not filed. (xiii) The statement of Ayodhya S/o Mahavir also indicates that Ram Autar was son of Sankatha. (xiv) The statement of Nankau S/o Babu, who was also produced by Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners), indicates that Parsadi S/o Beni was father of two sons and two daughters. (xv) The daughters of Parsadi S/o Beni, if any, were not produced before the CO, though out to have been produced to unearth the truth. (xvi) At this stage, it would be apt to indicate that to establish that Parsadi S/o Beni was father of two daughters no evidence was placed before the CO. (xvii) In view of the aforesaid, to the view of this Court, the witness Nankau S/o Babu is not truthful witness. (xviii) Now, reverting to the documentary evidence and the findings based upon the same recorded by the authorities under the Act of 1953 namely CO, SOC and DDC in the impugned orders passed by the authorities dated 25.02.2005, 08.05.2008 and 28.01.2025, respectively. (xix) Taking note of the evidence on record, the CO came to the conclusion that mother of Ram Autar and Ram Khelavan may be one but their father was Sankatta and Parsadi, respectively, and accordingly, directed to enter the name of Ram Khelavan in revenue records related to Parsadi S/o Beni. Relevant portion of the order of CO reads as under : - " नववयनदत चक कमयमक 826 पर परसयदद पपत वखनद व चक कमयमक 275/38 पर रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय कय नयम अमनकत हह। परसयदद कय ममतक हजनय व रयमखखलयवन कय ममतक परसयदद कय पपत हजनय नववयनदत नहद हह। नववयद मयत रयमऔतयर कय परसयदद कय पपत हजनख कय हह। सवयम पककयर रयमऔतयर नख अपनख बययन मद अपनख नयम 2-10-0 भभनम कय पटय हजनय सवदकयर नकयय हह। परनतप पटख वयलद भभनम सम० 989/2-10- 0 कख खयतख मद रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। इस तथय सख उसनख अननभजतय वयक कक हह। जबनक जज . च . आ . प . च . आ . प . 23 भयग 1 कख कमयमक 275/38 पर रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय कख नयम सनन फसलद 1382 सख गयटय सम० 989/2-10-0 अमनकत हह। इसद नवनदप पर आपततकतयर रयमऔतयर कख कथन व सयकयय कक पमयनणकतय समनदगध व सनदखहयसपद हजनय पतदत हजतद हह। और रयमऔतयर कय परसयदद कय पपत हजनय सहद नहद पतदत हजतय हह। पतयवलद पर उपलबध पररवयर रतजसटर कक नकल पधयन गयम सभय दयरय पमयनणत नहद हह तजससख उसपर नवशवयस नकयय जयनय उनचत नहद हह। ननवयरचन नयमयवलद व पहचयन पत व आवपयसद कक रसददख नकसद वयनक कक वललदयत तसद करनख कख पमयनणक सयकय / पमयण पलखख कक शखणद मद ऩहह आतख हह। कबजख व तसचयई कक रसददय पर अमनकत वललदयत कख आधयर पर उतरयतधकयर कय नवनदप नहद ननसतयररत नकयय जय सकतय हह। रयमऔतयर नकसद एक वयनक समकठय अथवय परसयदद कय पपत हज सकतय हह। पतयवलद पर उपलबध गवयहयन कख बययन व कयगजयत तथय उपरजक नववखचन सख नवतधवत तसद हह नक रयमऔतयर व रयमखखलयवन कक मयम एक हज सकतद हह परनतप उनकख नपतय कमशश समकठय व परसयदद हद हह। तजसकख अनपसयर ममतक परसयदद कख सथयन पर उनकख जययज उतरयतधकयरद रयमखखलयवन कय नयम अमनकत नकयय जयनय नयययजनचत पययय जयतय हह। आपतत रयम औतयर ननरसत नकयख जयनख यजगय हह। तदनपसयर नवरनचत वयद नवनदप रयमखखलयवन कख हक मद सकयरयतमक व रयमऔतयर कख हक मद नकयरयतमक ननवरत करतख हहए ममतक परसयदद कख उतरयतधकयर कख नबनदप पर ननमन आदखश नकयख जयतख हह- आदखश जज. च. आ. प. 23 भयग -1 कख कमयमक 826 मद अमनकत खयतखदयर ममतक परसयदद पपत वखनद कख सथयन पर वहहतसयत पपत रयमखखलयवन पपत परसयदद कय नयम बतकर वयररस अमनकत हज। आपतत रयमऔतयर ननरयधयर हजनख कख कयरण ननरसत कक जयतद हह। खयतय सदरदयर कख सथयन पर सशभभ. अमनकत हज। वयद अमलदरयमद पतयवलद दयतखल दफतर हज।" . (xx) Being aggrieved, the SOC was approached by means of Appeal No. 396 (Ram Autar Vs. Ram Khelavan), under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 and this appeal was dismissed by the SOC vide order dated 08.05.2008. Relevant portion of the order of SOC reads as under : - " पतयवलद मद समलग गणनय कयरर मद रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। ननवयरचक नयमयवलद कमयमक 87 पर रयमऔतयर पपत परसयदद अमनकत हह। लगयन रसददद जज पतयवलद पर हह , उनमद सख कख वल 4 रसददय मद रयमऔतयर परसयदद अमनकत हह । नकल आ० पत 23 - 1 – मद चक सम० 275, 38 मद रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत अपदलकतयर कय कथन हह नक उसकख नपतय कय नयम परसयदद उफर समकठय हह परनतप इस समबनध मद पतयवलद पर कजई सयकय़ उपलबध नहद हह। नकल पररवयर रयमऔतयर पपत परसयदद अमनकत हह। और इसद पररवयर रतजसटर मद मकयन नम० 19 ख मद पररवयर कख मपतखयय रयम खखलयवन तथय पररवयर कख सदसयय रयमखखलयवन , शयनतद , रयजकप मयर तथय नपतय कय नयम रयमऔतयर अमनकत हह जबनक अपदलकतयर कख कथन कख अऩपसयर रयमऔतयर व रयम खखलयवन सगख भयई हह इसतलयख इस पररवयर रतजसटर कक पनवनषययम सहद पतदत नहद हजतद हह और उन पर नवशवयस नहद नकयय सकतय हह। मकतखक सयकय मद रयम औतयर नख अपनख नयम 2-10-0 भभनम कय पटय हजनय कहय हह परनतप पटख वयलद भभनम पर रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। नकल आ० पत 23 – 1 - मद कमयमक 275/38 पर भद रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। इन इनदयज कख आधयर पर अपदलकतयर परसयदद कय पपत हजनय तसद नहह हजतय हह। नकल पररवयर रतजसटर जज पतयवलद पर हह, वह भद गयम पधयन दयरय पमयनणत नहद हह पतयवलद पर उपलबध तलतखत व मकतखक सयकयय सख यह तसद हजतय हह नक रयमऔतयर व रयम खखलयवन कक मयम एक थद परनतप उनकख नपतय कमशश परसयदद व समकठय अलग - अलग थख। इस पकयर अपदलकतयर अपनख कज परसयदद कय पपत तसद करनख मद सवरथय असफल रहय हह। चकबनदद अतधकयरद कय आदखश सहद हह, अपदल बलहदन हह, ननरसत हजनख यजगय हह। आदखश अपदल ननरसत कक जयतद हह। पतयवलद बयद आवशयक कययरवयहद दयतखल दफतर हज।" . (xxi) After the order of SOC, the Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) filed the revision registered as Revision Case No. 0062/2019, Computerized Case No. 2019531069000062 (Ram Autar Vs. Ram Khelavan), under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. The revisional authority namely DDC dismissed the revision vide order dated 28.01.2025. (xxi) After the order of SOC, the Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) filed the revision registered as Revision Case No. 0062/2019, Computerized Case No. 2019531069000062 (Ram Autar Vs. Ram Khelavan), under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. The revisional authority namely DDC dismissed the revision vide order dated 28.01.2025. The concluding part of order dated 28.01.2025 is extracted herein-under : - " पतयवलद कय अवलजकन एवम अवर नययययलय कख आदखश नदनयमक 08.05.2008 कय पररशदलन नकयय गयय, तजसमद उनलतखत हह नक गणनय कयरर मद रयम औतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। ननवयरचक नयमयवलद कमयमक 87 पर रयमऔतयर पपत परसयदद अमनकत हह। लगयन रसददद जज पतयवलद पर हह , उनमद सख कख वल 4 रसददय मद रयमऔतयर पपत परसयदद अमनकत हह। नकल आकयर पत 23 भयग -1 मद चक सम 0-275, 38 मद रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। अपदलकतयर कय कथन हह नक उसकख नपतय कय नयम परसयदद उफर समकठय हह परनतप इस समबमध मद पतयवलद पर कजई सयकय उपलबध नहह हह। नकल पररवयर रयम औतयर पपत परसयदद अमनकत हह और इसद पररवयर रतजसटर मद मकयन नम 0- 19 ख मद पररवयर कख मपतखयय रयम खखलयवन तथय पररवयर कख सदसयय मद रयमखखलयवन , शयनतद , रयजकप मयर तथय नपतय कय नयम रयमऔतयर अमनकत हह , जबनक अपदलकतयर कख कथन कख अनपसयर रयमऔतयर व रयम खखलयवन सगख भयई हह इसतलयख इस पररवयर रतजसटर कक पनवनषययम सहद पतदत नहह हजतद हह और उन पर नवशवयस नहह नकयय जय सकतय हह। मकतखक सयकय मद रयम औतयर नख अपनख नयम 2-10-0 भभनम कय पटय हजनय कहय हह परनतप पटख वयलद भभनम पर रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। आकयर पत 23 भयग -1 मद कमयमक 275/38 पर भद रयमऔतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। इन इनदयज कख आधयर पर अपदलकतयर परसयदद कय पपत हजनय तसद नहह हजतय हह। पतयवलद पर उपलबध तलतखत व मकतखक सयकयय सख यह तसद हजतय हह नक रयमऔतयर व रयमखखलयवन कक मयम एक थद परनतप उनकख नपतय कमशश परसयदद व समकठय अलग - अलग थख। इसद गयम मद रयम औतयर पपत समकठय कख नयम सख पटय भद हहआ थय तथय इनकख दयरय चकबनदद अतधकयरद कख समक जज आपतत नदनयमक 23.05.2002 कज दयतखल कक गई थद उसमद रयम औतयर कख नपतय कय नयम परसयदद अमनकत हह तथय पररवयर रतजसटर मकयन नम 0-19 क मद , ननवयरचक ननयमयवलद 1995 कख कमयमक 0087 पर तथय वजटर कयरर मद रयमऔतयर कख नपतय कय नयम परसयदद अमनकत हह। कहद पर भद उनफर यत कय उलखख करतख हहयख समकठय नहह तलखय हह। जजत चकबनदद आकयर पत -23 भयग -1 कख खयतय सम 0-275/38 मद रयम औतयर पपत समकठय अमनकत हह। अतश एक वयनक कज दज नपतय कख रप मद सवतव नहह नदयय जय सकतय हह। इसकख अनतररक वयदद नख कजई ऐसय सयकय नहह दयतखल नकयय हह तजससख यह सयनबत हज सकख नक उसकख नपतय कय नयम रयमऔतयर पपत परसयदद उफर समकठय हह। उभय पकय कख तकरम कज सपननख एवम पतयवलद पर उपलबध तथयय/ सयकयय कय समयक पररशदलन करनख कख उपरयनत मद इस ननषकरर पर पहहमचतय हहम नक अवर नययययलय कय आदखश नवतधसमगत हह, तजसमद नकसद हसतकखप कक आवशयकतय पतदत नहह हजतद हह। ननगरयनद बलहदन व ननरयधयर हजनख कख कयरण ननरसत नकयख जयनख यजगय हह। आदखश उपरजकयनपसयर ननगरयनद रयम औतयर पपत परसयदद उफर समकठय ननरसत कक जयतद हह। अवर नययययलय कक पतयवतलययम वयपस हय। इस नययययलय कक पतयवलद बयद आवशयक कययरवयहद दयतखल दफतर हज।" . 4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners, successors of Ram Autar, challenging the concurrent findings of facts. 5. To impeach the impugned orders, Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the evidence including documentary evidence has not been appreciated by the authorities under the Act of 1953 in true spirit and such concurrent findings recorded are perverse and being so are liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents stated that the Ram Autar (predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners) has failed to establish his case that he is the son of Parsadi and as such no interference in the present matter is required. 7. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records. 8. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders for the reason that concurrent findings of fact that Ram Autar (predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners) has failed to establish/prove that he is the son of Parsadi S/o Beni are just and proper. It is for the following reason(s). (i) Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) was the beneficiary of the entries made in Form CH-23 Part 1 Sl. No. 275/38, and this Form indicates that patta of 2 Biga and 10 Biswa of land i.e. Gata No. 989 of the same village was provided to Ram Autar S/o Sankatha. Thus, according to this document the Ram Autar was the son of Sankatha. (ii) From the documentary evidence placed by Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) it is/was not established/proved that Parsadi and Sankatha were the name of same person. In other words, Ram Autar failed to establish/prove that he is son of Parsadi @ Sankatha. (iii) Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) was not genuine claimant. It is for the reason that (a) he filed only four revenue receipts wherein the name of Parsadi was indicated, (b) as per copy of parivar register, not certifed by village pradhan, filed by Ram Autar the Ram Autwar is the fatehr of Ram Khelavan, though according to Ram Autar himself he is the real brother of Ram Khelavan. (iv) By means of appropriate pleadings and evidence in support thereof, as entire evidence adduced before the CO has not been placed on record, the concurrent findings of fact which are to the effect that the mother of Ram Autar (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) and Ram Khelavan was same and their father were Sankatha and Parsadi, respectively, have not been impeached. 9. In view of aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed. Costs made easy. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench