Allowed

Surya Kumar Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025WRIB/39/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against consolidation orders directing the petitioner to adduce evidence first despite the objection having been filed by Vinay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh impleading him as opposite party. High Court set aside both orders, directed the Consolidation Officer to correct party names and decide evidence sequence afresh within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 21.10.2024 and 23.12.2024 set aside; CO directed to correct party names, pass fresh orders on evidence, and conclude proceedings within six months.

Surya Kumar Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19062

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 39 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surya Kumar Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Unnao And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhineet Jaiswal,Shreya Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Awasthi,Pritish Kumar,Shivansh Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Anand Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as perused the record. The respondent No. 7 is the proforma party.

¶6

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶7

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Revisional Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao ile Respondent No. 1, copy whereof is contained as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.

¶8

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Final Record, Unnao i.e Respondent No. 2, copy whereof is contained as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition.

¶9

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2 to refrain from proceeding in case filed under section 9-A of U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, bearing Case No. 287/226/04/06/2024 (Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. Surya Kumar Singh and Others) till disposal of Regular Suit No. 233 of 1993 (Om Narayan Singh vs Smt. Poonam Singh and others) pending before Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Unnao;

¶10

IV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2 to record the evidence of Respondent No. 3 to 6 ie the objectors in Case No. 287/226/04/06/2024 (Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. Surya Kumar Singh and Ors.) pending before Respondent No. 2, prior to the petitioner, in accordance with principles enunciated under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C."

¶11

Brief facts of the case in hand, which are relevant for the purposes of final disposal of this petition, are as under:-

¶12

(i) An objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") registered as Case No. 226/04/06/Restoration/2024, Computerized Case No. 202454106940010015, (Surya Kumar Singh vs. Karuna Devi) was filed by Vinay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh s/o Om Narayan Singh, Devi @ Laxmi Devi resident of Village- Hasnapur, Pargana- Gorinda Parsandan, Tehsil- Hasanganj, District-

¶13

Unnao, impeading therein Surya Kumar Singh s/o Jagnnath Singh (petitioner herein) and Vaibhav Singh s/o Surya Kumar Singh (respondent No. 7 herein) as opposite parties.

¶14

(ii) The aforesaid objection was decided vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed by respondent No. 2/Consolidation Officer, Final Record, Unnao (in short "CO").

¶15

(iii) From the aforesaid, this Court finds that parties name were not correctly entered in the paper book, relevant Register(s) and Portal of the CO.

¶16

(iv) After the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by CO, the petitioner preferred an application dated 20.02.2024 for recalling the order dated 19.02.2024 and the same was allowed by the CO vide order dated 01.03.2024.

¶17

(v) After the order dated 01.03.2024, the petitioner preferred an application dated 05.03.2024 before the CO praying therein to correct the parties name in the pending case in issue. The prayer sought in the said application is extracted hereunder:-

¶18

" अततशशममनजशससपमररनमहहककममकदममउपररककमउनवमनममकदममससररकमममरबनमम- करणम बनमम - दसवशकससरमनपरकवनरकमममरआकद - ससररकमममरअअककतकरवमकरकवपकशससररकमममरकर जवमबदमवमदमखखलकरनसहसतमकमससकमएकममहकमअवसरपदमनकरनसककककपमककजमवस।"

¶19

(vi) The aforesaid application was rejected by the CO vide order dated 05.03.2024.

¶20

(vii) Thereafter, on 30.09.2024, the issues were framed by the CO. The issue No. 1 is extracted hereunder:-

¶21

"1- करमकव०भस०कककवपकशसअ० 1 व 2 ससररकमममरखसअहककपतनशवहभवखसअहककममतमशशमतश पसनमखसअहनसरखजसटटशककतबहनमममकसदमरमओअमनरमरनखसअहससकरकरकबजमवदखलपमपककरम हहतरमकव०आ०कमदमखखलखमररजबहनमममकसआधमरपरशशमतशपसनमखसअहकसनममतहसशलमम हहआहहतदनमसमरआधमरवररममकव०भस०पकतवमदशगणकसनममअअककतरहशहह।"

¶22

(viii) The above quoted issue No. 1 also indicates that the petitioner/Surya Kumar Singh and respondent No. 7/Vaibhav Singh were/are the opposite parties in the objection, detailed above, filed by Vinay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953.

¶23

(ix) It would be apt to indicate here that the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are the legal heirs of the original objector namely Vinay Kumar Singh.

¶24

(x) On 14.10.2024, the CO passed the order fixing 21.10.2024, the date was fixed with the consent of the parties, for adducing the evidence by Surya Kumar Singh, opposite party before him.

¶25

(xi) Thereafter, 21.10.2024 the petitioner preferred an application based upon the principles embodied under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC praying therein that the objector be directed to adduce his evidence.

¶26

(xii) The application aforesaid was rejected by the CO only based upon the array

¶27

of parties indicated on record vide order dated 21.10.2024. The order dated 21.10.2024 reads as under:-

¶28

"21-10-24 आजपसशहहई।पमकमरकरमईगरयशशससररकमममरआकददमरमपम०पतकदरमगरम।कक वमदशकमसमकरपसशककरमगरम।वमदससररकमममरबनममकरणमदसवशकसनममउनवमनससपचखलतहह। अततसमकरहसतमससररकमममरकससमकरममहशकनरतहहकदनमअक 28-10-24 करकनरतककजमतशहह।"

¶29

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the CO without looking into the paper book particularly the parties indicated in the objection filed under Section 9- A(2) of the Act of 1953 passed the order dated 21.10.2024, from which, it is evident that the said objection was filed by Vinay Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh impleading therein Surya Kumar Singh and Vaibhav Singh as opposite parties.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order(s) dated 21.10.2024, quoted above, and 23.12.2024, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder, passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao (in short 'DDC'), who also failed to take note of the aforesaid, in Revision No. 0913 of 2024, Computerized Case No. 202454106900000913 (Surya Kumar Singh v s. Ajay Kumar Singh and others), under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953, whereby, the DDC affirmed the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by CO, are liable to be interfered with by this Court.

¶31

" पतमवलशपसशहहई।उभरपकमरअखधवकमउपससरतआए, खजनहससमनमगरम।अवरनरमरमलरकक पतमवलशकमअवलरकनककरमगरम।चकबनदशअखधकमरशदमरमफदरहकममकदनमअक 05.03.2024 मम उकलखखतककरमगरमहहककपतमवलशकमउनममनपमरमभससहशससररकमममरबनममकरणमदसवशहह। अततपररवतरनकमकरईऔकचतरनहयहह।वमदपमरमभससअबतकइनकसदमरमजवमबदमवमनहयपसश ककरमगरमकफरभशनरमरकहतममजवमबदमवमपसतमतकरनसहसतमसमरकदरमजमनमउकचतपतशतहरतम हह।ससररकमममरकरकनदरकशतककरमजमतमहहककअगलशकतखरकरअपनमजवमबदमवमपतरसकदशममम पसतमतकरमतरमअकगमकतखर 12.03.2024 करकनरतककगई।

¶32

फदरहकममकदनमअक 29.04.2024 करचकबनदशअखधकमरशदमरमउकलखखतककरमगरमहहककससरर कमममरआकदककओरससजवमबदमवमपसतमतककरमजमनमहहजरककनहयककरमजमरहमहह।अजर खसअहदमरमममननशरउचचनरमरमलरदमरमपमररतआदसशररटरमकचकमसअ०-154/2024 तम०फहसलम 30.03.2024 पसतमतककरमगरमखजसममवमदकमकनसतमरण 6 ममहममकरनसहसतमकनदरकशतककरमगरम हह।उककसआलरकममससररकमममरकरअअकतमअवसरदसतसहहरसपमनतकनदरकशतककरमजमतमहहकक कनरतकतखर 17.05.2024 करअपनमजवमबदमवमपसतमतकरम।कदनमअक 17.05.2024 करससररकमममर आकददमरमजवमबदमवमपसतमतककरमगरम।पतमवलशवमद-कबनदमकनधम र णहसतमकनरतककगई।

¶33

फदरहकममकदनमअक 20.09.2024 करचकबनदशअखधकमरशदमरमउकलखखतककरमगरमहहककउभर पकदमरमअपनस-अपनसवमदकबनदमकनरतकरखलखखतरपससपसशककरमतदनमसमरवमदकबनदम कनधम र रतककरमजमएगम।उभरपकसहमतहह।ममननशरउचचनरमरमलरकसकनदरशपरशशघसमनवमई हसतमकदनमअक 30.09.2024 वमसतससमकरससररकमममरपसशहर।कदनमअक 30.09.2024 करकमल 01 लगमरत 08 वमदकबनदमकनकमरतककरसगरसतरमपतमवलशवमसतससमकरससररकमममरखसअहकनरतककगई।

¶34

फदरहकममकदनमअक 14.10.2024 करचकबनदशअखधकमरशदमरमउकलखखतककरमगरमहहककपतमवलश ससररकमममरखसअहकससमकरममकनरतहह।दरननपकककसहमकतससकदनमअक 21.10.2024 कनरतकक जमतशहह।वमसतससमकरससररकमममरपसतमतहर।

¶35

फदरहकममकदनमअक 21.10.2024 करचकबनदशअखधकमरशदमरमउकलखखतककरमगरमहहककवमदससरर कमममरबनममकरणमदसवशकसनममउनवमनससपचखलतहह।अततसमकरहसतमससररकमममरकससमकरमम हशकनरतहह।

¶36

पतमवलशपरउपलबधतथरन/समकरनकमसमरकपररशशलनककरमगरम।चकबनदशअखधकमरशदमरम

¶37

फदरहकममकदनमअक 05.03.2024 ममसपषरपससउकलखखतककरमगरमहहककपतमवलशकमउनममन पमरमभससहशससररकमममरबनममकरणमदसवशहह।अतएवपरमततससररकमममरकरहशसमकरपसतमत ककरमजमनमनरमररकचतपतशतहरतमहह।पकनकरसमकर/समनवमईकमअवसरअवरनरमरमलरमम कवदममनहह।चकबनदशअखधकमरशकमआदसशअअकतमआदसशनहयहह।अततकनगरमनशकनरसतककरस जमनसररगरहह।

¶38

आदसश

¶39

उपररकमनमसमरकनगरमनशससररकमममरखसअहपमतसव०जगनमरखसअहकनरसतककजमतशहह।पतमवलश वमदआवशरककमररवमहशदमखखलदफतरहर।"

¶40

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 21.10.2024 and 23.12.2024 are hereby set-aside . The CO is directed to correct the parties name and thereafter pass appropriate orders in the matter with regard to adducing the evidence by the parties and conclude the proceedings in issue which were instituted wayback in the year 1998, for which, this Court had also passed the order dated 28.03.2024 in writ petition i.e. Matters Under Article 227 No. 1541 of 2024 (Ajai Kumar Singh and others vs. Consolidation Officer Unnao and others) regarding expeditious disposal of the same, most expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶41

The instant petition is allowed in above terms. Cost made easy.

¶42

Order Date :- 5.4.2025/Arun/-

¶43

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surya Kumar Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Kumar Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anand Kishore Vs Commissioner, Lko. Division, Lko. and Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner (Prashasan) Mandal Ayodhya and Others

Gayan Praksah and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Chandra Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Kallo Vs Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, Raebareli and Others