Muvin Ahmed @ Muvin vs Addl. Consolidation Commissioner (Add.) U.P. Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Muvin Ahmed @ Muvin vs Addl. Consolidation Commissioner (Add.) U.P. Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer of Revision No. 62/2023 pending before D.D.C. Barabanki to D.D.C. Ayodhya, to be clubbed with the parallel reference concerning the same property and parties and decided at one place, preferably within three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision No. 62 of 2023 pending before D.D.C. Barabanki and the reference relating to the same proceedings pending before D.D.C. Ayodhya, concerning the same property and the same parties, should be clubbed and decided at one place to avoid conflicting decisions.

Court's answer

There is no dispute that two separate proceedings relating to the same property between the same parties are pending in two different districts.

Ratio / Principle

To avoid conflicting decisions, the two proceedings should be clubbed and decided at one place, since the presiding authority (DDC), the parties and the property in question are one and the same.

Key takeaways

The revision pending before DDC Barabanki bearing No. 62/2023 shall stand transferred to DDC Ayodhya, which shall consider and decide both the reference and the transferred revision after putting the parties to notice and affording full opportunity of hearing, without granting unnecessary adjournments.ratio¶14
The Court has not examined the merits of either party's case; D.D.C. Ayodhya shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date a copy of the order is placed before the court concerned.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - B No. 939 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.; Order Date 20.1.2025): Petition allowed. Following creation of district Ayodhya, consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H Act concerning the same property and parties lay split between D.D.C. Barabanki (Revision No. 62 of 2023) and D.D.C. Ayodhya (reference); the petitioner's application to club the two proceedings had been rejected on 11.07.2023. The Court held that, to avoid conflicting decisions, the two proceedings should be decided at one place, transferred Revision No. 62/2023 from DDC Barabanki to DDC Ayodhya for joint adjudication after notice and full hearing without unnecessary adjournments, directed decision strictly in accordance with law preferably within three months, and expressly left the merits unexamined.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3484

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 939 of 2024

Petitioner :- Muvin Ahmed @ Muvin Respondent :- Addl. Consolidation Commissioner (Add.) U.P. Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.

The record indicates that notices were issued to the private respondent nos.2 to 4 as well as the petitioner was required to serve the private respondent by dasti summon as well.

An affidavit of service has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner indicating that the notices could not be served. Office report dated 20.01.2025 indicates that the private respondent are sufficiently served.

In this view of the matter, in absence of the respondent nos.2 to 4 despite service the matter is being heard on merits.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially proceedings under the U.P.C.H Act were pending before the D.D.C Barabanki. With the carving out of new district Ayodhya the Tehsil in question fell in the jurisdiction of D.D.C Ayodhya. During pendency of the proceedings, a reference came to be initiated at the behest of the State respondent and a reference has been referred to DDC Ayodhya from where the petitioner has received notices. In the interim period, the Revision bearing no.62 of 2023 is pending before D.D.C Barabanki whereas the reference in respect of the same proceedings is pending before the D.D.C Ayodhya and it is in this context an application was moved by the petitioner to club the two proceedings before one D.D.C for effectual adjudication and to avoid conflicting decisions. The said application seeking transfer and clubbing of the two proceedings was rejected on 11.07.2023 which has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions, there does not appear to be any dispute in context that two separate proceedings relating to the same property in between the same

parties are pending in two different districts.

In order to avoid any conflicting decisions, it would be appropriate to club the two proceedings together as the Presiding Authoritiy i.e. the DDC is one and the same, the parties are also one and the same including the property in question and in this view this Court is satisfied that the two proceedings should be decided at one place.

Accordingly, the revision which is pending before the DDC, Barabanki bearing no.62 /2023 shall stand transferred to DDC Ayodhya who shall consider and decide both the reference as well as the Revision transferred from DDC Barabanki after putting the parties to notice and affording full opportunity of hearing but without granting any unnecessary adjournment.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and D.D.C., Ayodhya shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the court concerned.

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Harshita

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