Ravindra Nath @ Raveendra Kumar v. Up Sanchalak Chakbandhi, Bahraich and Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2025WRIB/979/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a procedural order listing the matter and maintaining status quo pending hearing. It does not decide the dispute regarding matrimonial status and inheritance rights under the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ravindra Nath @ Raveendra Kumar vs Up Sanchalak… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 979 of 2025

¶3

Ravindra Nath @ Raveendra Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Up Sanchalak Chakbandhi, Bahraich And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijai Bahadur Verma, Santosh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Srivastava

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no.3.

¶11

Under challenge is the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent no.3 has been allowed, as a consequence, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.11.2015 has been affirmed.

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute involved in the instant petition relates to the matrimonial status of Smt. Brijrani. As per the petitioner, she was the wife of Chandrika Prasad @ Chandu whereas as per the private respondent no.3 she was wife of Ram Abhilakh.

¶13

The record further indicates that Chandrika Prasad has properties situate in village Shivadha and also in Jai Chandpur Katghara. Upon the death of Chandrai Prasad on 27.02.1994 the properties came to be inherited by Smt.Brijrani who apart from the said also had her property of Khata No.478 in Shivadha village. Brijrani is said to have executed a registered Will on 24.06.1996 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. Upon the death of Smt. Brijrani in 1998 proceedings were initiated in respect of the property situate in village Shivadha.

¶14

WRIB No. 979 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Initially, an ex parte order was passed on 04.06.1999 which came to be challenged by the present petitioner. The same was allowed on 23.02.2005 and it is stated that the proceedings which were initiated and were decided relating to village Jai Chanpur Katghara wherein it was held that Brijrani was wife of Ram Abhilakh after taking note of the evidence including a Parivar Register by the authority while returning a finding which has affected the rights of the petitioner in respect of the property in question.

¶17

It is urged that the petitioner had contested the said proceedings and even though after recall the Consolidation Officer had passed an order on 06.11.2015 on the basis of the material relating to village Jai Chandpur Katghara but this was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 11of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Actg before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

¶18

Taking note of the aforesaid facts including the evidence which was led by the petitioner relating to village Shivadha the appeal of the petitioner was allowed on 21.08.2024. It is at this stage that the private respondent being aggrieved preferred a revision which has been allowed on 29.08.2025 and it is this order which is under challenge whereby the order of the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed.

¶19

Primarily, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as far as the matrimonial status of Brijrani is concerned, the same cannot have two contradictory conclusions; inasmuch as in respect of properties situate in village Jai Chandpur Katghara it was noticed that Brijrani was the wife of Ram Abhilakh whereas conclusive evidence and proceedings were taken note of wherein it was held that Brijrani was the wife of Chandrika Prasad @ Chandu.

¶20

It is further urged that Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the order dated 29.08.2025 broadly accepted the evidence which was led by the petitioner relating to village Shivadha but he erred in holding that the order dated 04.06.1999 which was passed by the Consolidation Officer and recall of which was moved by the petitioner and not Brijrani. Therefore, it was taken as a ground against the present petitioner.

¶21

WRIB No. 979 of 2025

¶22

¶23

Submission is that once the Brijrani had died in the year 1998 and since the present petitioner was claiming rights on the basis of the Will of Brijrani dated 24.06.1996, thus, it was but obvious that it could only have been the petitioner who could challenge it and they rightfully did so and the evidence which was led has not been appropriately considered.

¶24

Shri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the caveator has urged that the evidence given to the effect that Brijrani was the wife of Ram Abhilakh has been appropriately noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and these being findings of fact cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction.

¶25

It is urged that in so far as the Parivar Register which was relied upon by the petitioner relating to village Shivadha is concerned, the private respondent had raised his objections and had called in question the authenticity of the said document and since the same was still under a cloud, the same could not have been taken note of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and rightfully so hence in the given circumstances relying upon the documents and Jaichandpur Katghara, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed an order which does not require interference.

¶26

The matter requires consideration.

¶27

Since the private respondent has already put in appearance on caveat, hence no fresh notice is required. It will be open for the counsel for the private respondent to file his counter-affidavit within three weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner who if may so choose may file his rejoinder-affidavit within ten days thereafter.

¶28

List in the week commencing 24th of November, 2025.

¶29

As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today and none of the parties shall alienate or create third party rights in respect of property in question.

¶30

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶31

October 13, 2025 ank

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravindra Nath @ Raveendra Kumar v. Up Sanchalak Chakbandhi, Bahraich and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ravindra Nath @ Raveendra Kumar v. Up Sanchalak Chakbandhi, Bahraich and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taha Ahmad vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Patel vs State of U.P.

Shiva vs State of U.P.

Shafiq Ahmad Alias Nanhe vs State of U.P.

Piyush Singh Alias Golu vs State of U.P.

Vaibhav Singh vs State of U.P.