HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 5051 of 2025 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 8.12.2025, where by this Court directed the learned standing counsel to obtain instruction in the matter, instruction dated 16.12.2025 sent by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj, filed before this Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Laxmi Kant Triparthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing counsel for the State- respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are recorded tenure holder of plot no.270, area 0.0400 hectare, plot no. 271, area 0.0600 hectare, plot no. 272, area 0.1800 hectare, situated at Village Rasulpur Mawaiya, Pargana-Kewai, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj. Petitioners filed an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.C.H. Act') before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj, with the prayer that petitioners be permitted to construct house over plot nos. 270, 271, 272. On the aforesaid petitioners' application, report was called for from the Consolidation Officer, Handia, accordingly, a report was submitted by Consolidation Officer in the aforementioned proceeding. The proceeding was registered as Case No.22 of 2025, Computerized Case No.20255402300000484. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Laxmi Kant Tripathi, Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Bhal Chandra And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 24.03.2025, rejected the petitioners' application filed under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act on the ground that permission can be granted up to the area 300 sq. meter, while the petitioners have filed application for construction. Petitioners challenged the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 24.03.2025 by way of revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revision filed by petitioners was heard and dismissed as not maintainable by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate, Prayagraj, vide order dated 11.08.2025. Hence this writ petition for the following relief. "a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No.0746 of 2025, Computerized Case No.20255402300000746 (Bhal Chandra & others Vs. State of U.P.) (Annexure No.7) . b. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.0484/2025, Computerized Case No.20255402300000484, (Rajendra Prasad & others Vs. State of U.P.) (Annexure No. 6). c. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to accord permission for construction of pakka house in area having 300 sq. meters comprising Gata no. 270, 271, 272 situated in village Rasoolpur, Mavaiva, Pargana Kevai, Tehsil Handiya, District Prayagraj." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are recorded owner of plot nos. 270, 271, 272, as such application under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of petitioners WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 2 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation for raising construction over the plot in dispute, but application has been rejected on misconceived ground. He submitted that revision filed by petitioners has also been dismissed without considering the grounds set up in revision. He submitted that Respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has not considered the reply/rejoinder affidavit dated 22.7.2024 filed on behalf of petitioner stating categorically that permission to raise construction be granted up to 300 sq. meter area, as such there was no occasion to reject the petitioners' application on the ground that permission cannot be granted beyond 300 sq. meter. He further submitted that in any case permission up to 300 sq. meter cannot be refused by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act, if applicants are recorded owner of the plot in question. He submitted that impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities should be set aside and direction be issued to respondent no.2 to consider the petitioners' application for raising construction over plot no. 270, 271, 272 upto 300 sq.meter. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by consolidation authorities as there is no mention about the area over which the petitioners are interested to raise construction. He further submitted that in respect of title/partition of plot nos.270, 271 and 272, dispute under Section 9-A (2) of U.PCH Act is pending before Consolidation Officer, as such permission under Section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be granted. He submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioners should be dismissed. 6. I have considered argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 3 7. There is no dispute about the facts that petitioners are recorded owner of the plot in question and application under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioners has been rejected by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed as not maintainable. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act will be necessary, which is as under. 5. Effect of [notification under Section 4(2)].-(1) Upon the publication of the notification [under sub-section (2) of Section 4] in the Official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under Section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the [notification under Section 4(2)] relates, namely- c. notwithstanding anything contained in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolidation and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall- (1) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or (ii) Omitted by U.P. Act No. 30 of WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 4 1991 (w.e.f. 19.2.1991); Provided that a tenure-holder may continue to use his holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued '[under sub-section (2) of Section 4]. 9. It is material to mention that permission for raising construction under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act can be granted only upto the area measuring 300 sq. meter as provided under U.P. Consolidation Manual. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation while rejecting the petitioners' application under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act has mentioned that permission can be granted up to 300 sq. meters, while the petitioners have prayed for construction over the area 2800 square meter which cannot be allowed. 10. It is material to mention that petitioners have filed reply dated 22.7.2024 in the aforementioned proceeding under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act that petitioners are only interested to raise construction over area 300 sq. meter in their share without affecting the right of other co-sharer but without considering the reply of the petitioner, the application for permission filed on behalf of petitioners has been rejected on misconceived ground. 11. The perusal of the para nos.6 and 7 of the prayer made in the reply/ rejoinder affidavit dated 22.07.2024 will be also relevant, which is as under:- "6. यह िक ्ऺाथर्गणो का कहना है िक जो उ्व भूिम पर जो िहस्सा आये उसी भूभाग में से मा्ऴ 300 वगर्मीटर पर जानवरों को रखने के िलए पक्का मकान बनाने की अनुमित चाहता है जो ्ऺदान िकया जावे। 7. यह िक उ्व भूिम पर पहले भी मड़ही, जानवरों के चरही, हौदा, हैण्डपम्प व लैटिरग आिद सभी ्ऺाथर्गण व उनके पिरवार वाले आबादी के रूप में उपयोग कर रहे WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 5 है। इस आधार पर मकान बनाने के िलए अनुमत िदया जाना आवश्यक है। अतएवं ्शीमान जी से ्ऺाथर्ना है िक गाटा सं० 270, 271 व 272 पर ्ऺाथर्गणों के िहस्से वाले भूिम पर मकान बनाने की अनुमित ्ऺदान करने की कृ पा करें। िदनांक- 22/07/2024 ्ऺाथर्गण राजेन््श ्ऺसाद आिद" 12. Perusal of prayer made in the aforementioned application under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act filed on behalf of petitioners will also be relevant, which is as under:- "्ऺाथर्ना अतः ्शीमान जी से ्ऺाथर्ना है िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी हिण्डया को िनदरॏिशत िकया जावे िक जाँच आख्या कराकर ्ऺाथर्गण को उ्व गाटा पर मकान िनमार्ण करने की अनुमित ्ऺदान करने की कृ पा की जावे । िदनांक 06/572024 ्ऺाथर्गण राजेन््श ्ऺसाद भालचन््श फू लचन््श ्ऺेमचन््श पु्ऴगण बैजनाथ समस्त िनवासीगण ्षाम महुआ्तर दुमदुमा परगना के वाई, तहसील हिण्डया जनपद ्ऺयागराज।" 13. Perusal of paragraph no.5 of the Circular No.3150/G-415/2002 dated 8.6.2005 issued by Consolidation Commissioner U.P.Lucknow in respect to provision contained under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act will be also relevant, which is as under:- WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 6 "्ऺेषक, चकबन्दी आयु्व, उ्तर ्ऺदेश, लखनऊ। सेवा में, 1. समस्त सहायक / बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी, उ्तर ्ऺदेश। 2. समस्त उप/संयु्व संचालक चकबन्दी, उ्तर ्ऺदेश। 3. समस्त िजला उप संचालक चकबन्दी / िजलािधकारी, उ्तर ्ऺदेश। संख्या: 3150/जी0-415/2002 िदनांक 8 जून, 2005 िवषय : उ०्ऺ० जोत चकबन्दी अिधिनयम 1953 की धारा-5(ग) के सम्बन्ध में िदशा िनदरॏश। 1. …………………………… 2…………………………………… 3……………………………………. 4………………………………….. 5. उ्व के पिर्ऺेष्य में सम्यक िवचारोपरान्त यह िनणर्य िलया गया है िक धारा-5(ग ) के दुरूपयोग को रोकने हेतु चकबन्दी अिधिनयम व चकबन्दी मैनुअल के ्ऺािवधानों के अितिर्व िनम्निलिखत मागर् िनदरॏशों का भी पालन सुिनि्ात िकया जाये :- क- धारा-5 (ग) में दौरान चकबन्दी मूलजोत के काश्तकार को उसके स्वयं के उपयोग हेतु अिधकतम 300 वगर्मीटर की अनु्ञा अिधिनयमव मैनुअल के ्ऺािवधानों के अन्तगर्त परी्षण व सन्तुि्ि के उपरान्त ्ऺदान की जायेगी। ख– धारा-5(ग) के अन्तगर्त आवेदन, स्वीकार करने या न करने की दशा में पािरत आदेश स्वतः स्प्ि व सकारण हो। उ्व आदेशों का कठोरतम् अनुपालन सुिनि्ात िकया जाये। भवदीय, (पी०के ० झा) चकबन्दी आयु्व, उ०्ऺ०, लखनऊ" WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 7 14. Perusal of application filed under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act, reply dated 22.07.2024 filed on behalf of petitioners in the proceeding under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act, report submitted in the proceeding under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act as well the provisions contained under the Act demonstrate that in any case the permission can be granted under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act up to the area 300 sq. meter, as such there is no difficulty to grant permission up to 300 sq. meter to the petitioners. 15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2- Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by respondent no.3- Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to be set aside and same are hereby set aside. 16. The writ petition is allowed. Respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj, is directed to register the petitioners' application under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number and pass order for granting permission to petitioners to raise construction up to area 300 sq. meter. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj, within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No notice has been issued issued to respondent no.5/Tribhuvan Nath by this Court, as such respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall afford opportunity to respondent no.5/Tribhuvan Nath before granting permission under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) May 7, 2026 PS* WRIB No. 5051 of 2025 8 Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad