Krishna Kumar Dubey Vs Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Krishna Kumar Dubey Vs Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned to decide the petitioner's maintainability application after hearing the parties, without unnecessary adjournments and as expeditiously as possible; petitioner left free to raise all his objections before that officer.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained at this stage while the appeal of respondents No. 4 and 5 is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the petitioner's maintainability application remains undecided there. +1 more

Court's answer

At this stage, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise all his objections before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application regarding maintainability after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably as expeditiously as possible.

Key takeaways

The Court made clear it had not examined the case of either party on merits; the appellate Court (Settlement Officer of Consolidation) is to consider and decide the petitioner's application strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - B No. 85 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8, Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J., Order Date 29.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:5866) — Krishna Kumar Dubey v. Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Ayodhya and others: DISPOSED OF. Under challenge were (i) the order dated 31.05.2024 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya rejecting the petitioner's revision No. 401 as not maintainable, and (ii) the order dated 30.05.2014 of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Faizabad, which, in the appeal of private-respondents No. 4 and 5, stayed the operation of the Consolidation Officer's order dated 27.05.2014 passed under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954. Since the respondents' appeal was pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the petitioner's application raising maintainability was yet to be decided, the Court, at this stage, declined to entertain the petition, left the petitioner free to raise all his objections before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and directed that officer to consider and decide the maintainability application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, without unnecessary adjournments, preferably as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5866

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 85 of 2025

Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Dubey Respondent :- Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.6.

Under challenge is the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner bearing No.401 was rejected as being not maintainable. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Faizabad, whereby in an appeal preferred by the private-respondents No.4 and 5, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has stayed the operation of the order dated 27.05.2014.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 27.05.2014 in exercise of powers under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954 passed an order dated 27.05.2014 only to the extent that the same be incorporated in the records.

It is urged that the private-respondents No.4 and 5 have preferred an appeal against the said order which is not maintainable. It is also urged that the petitioner has moved an application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation raising an issue of maintainability, but the same has not yet been decided coupled with the fact that the petitioner also had filed a revision against the order dated 30.05.2017 whereby the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has stayed the operation of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 27.05.2014 and the revision has been dismissed.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the appeal preferred by the private-respondents No.4 and 5 is already pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation

and the petitioner has raised an issue of maintainability which is yet to be decided. Accordingly, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to raise all his objections before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned.

Since, the application for considering the issue of maintainability is already pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned. accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned to consider and decide the application regarding maintainability as filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously as possible.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the appellate Court shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Rakesh/-

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench