Ram Kishore Vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Heard Shri Suresh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent.

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with.

The dispute in the present case is a title dispute pertaining to Khata No. 97 where the proceedings were concluded by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was able to demonstrate that with regard to Gata no. 507 and 502, a civil suit was filed under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and Judicial Officer by means of judgment and decree dated 22.6.1959 had decided the matter in favour of the petitioner.

The Consolidation Officer had allowed the objections filed by the petitioner and rejected the objections filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents. Thereafter by means of order dated 10.01.2012 and the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded in the revenue records as Bhumidhar. Against the order dated 10.1.2022 an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Pratapgarh. The Settlement Officer, Pratapgarh duly considered the grounds of appeal, wherein the proceedings of the judgment and order dated 22.6.1959 were assailed on the ground that the same was fictitious and non existence. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also found that the paper book and proceedings pertaining to the said suits were not traceable and therefore any finding recorded in this regard in favour of the petitioner can be made only after verifying the judgment and order dated 5.6.1959 passed in the proceedings under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further found that at the time of passing of the said order the petitioner would have been only four years old and this was fact which is sought relevant to be verified before concluding the proceedings in favour of the petitioner.

WRIB No. 1071 of 2025

2

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also rejected the revision and affirmed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation thereby remanding back the matter to the the Consolidation Officer. Before this Court, it could not be said that the findings recorded either by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation were perverse, illegal or arbitrary nor could it be contradicted. Apart from above, I find that the only ground the petitioner claims right to the disputed property is the judgment and order dated 22.6.1959. Unless and until it is verified that the suit proceedings were in fact concluded in favour of the petitioner by means of the said order, the benefit of the said order cannot be granted to the petitioner and it is for this reason that the proceedings were remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for being decided afresh, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

According, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the Consolidation Officer, before whom the matter has been remanded shall pass fresh order, in the light of the directions issued by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation and conclude the proceedings expedition, say within a period of 8 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings.

November 11, 2025 Muk

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kishore v. Deputy Director Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others