Ram Devi and 2 Others vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation / D.M., Barabanki and Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 143 of 2026

¶3

Ram Devi And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

District Deputy Director Of Consolidation / D.M., Barabanki And Others

¶7

araan n ers	....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Tarun Kumar Mishra, Neeti Singh, Ram Vishal	Atul Kumar, Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Jitendra Maurya, Ram Raj Ojha, Yugul Ki	Mohan Singh, shor Sharma

¶8

Court No. - 21

¶9

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Shri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 5, Shri Ram Raj Ojha, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6, Shri Y.K. Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No. 7 and Shri Govind Kumar Chaurasia, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 9.

¶12

Issue notice to Respondent No. 8, returnable within four weeks.

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that initially after allotment of chaks to the petitioners and the private respondents, only one person, Mr. Rahesh Chandra S/o Ram Prasad i.e. Respondent No. 8 had filed the objections only in respect of lesser area in his Chak No. 42. The Consolidation Officer, Tehsil- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki, decided the objections filed by Mr. Rahesh Chandra vide order dated 06.05.2022 and thereby the area of Chak No. 42 belonging to Mr. Rahesh Chandra was increased. One Mr. Hanuman Prasad who is Respondent No. 6 herein challenged the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Consolidation Officer by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, being Case No. 0542 of 2025 and prayed that he may be allotted Chak No. 19/2. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal filed

¶14

WRIB No. 143 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

by Mr. Hanuman Prasad and thereby changed various chaks allotted to the petitioners and the private respondents and thereby Chak No. 19/2 had been given to Hanuman Prasad.

¶17

The petitioners preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki, taking a categorical ground that Mr. Hanuman Prasad did not file any objection regarding the allotment of chak before the Consolidation Officer, therefore, the Settlement Officer could not have entertained his appeal beyond the scope of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 06.05.2025. It has further been contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, without considering the issue that when Mr. Hanuman Prasad did not raise any objection regarding allotment of chaks to him at the level of the Consolidation Officer, then how he could have maintained the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, straightaway had dismissed the revision.

¶18

It has been argued that since Mr. Hanuman Prasad did not file any objection before the Consolidation Officer in respect of non allotment of Chak No. 19/2 to him, there was no occasion for him to file an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and thus entire exercise done on behest of Mr. Hanuman Prasad, on its face, is absolutely arbitrary and illegal.

¶19

Learned counsels appearing for Respondents No. 6 & 7 have submitted that under the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, as affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, all the tenure holders have now been allotted chaks on their original holdings.

¶20

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that at the initial stage nobody was aggrieved with the allotment of chaks except Respondent No. 8, who filed a limited objection before the Consolidation Officer for increasing of area of his Chak No. 42 and that was allowed. Once no one was aggrieved at the initial stage of allotment of chaks, prima facie, there was no occasion for Respondent No. 6 to file an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and further it appears that the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the appeal, could not have made fresh allotment of chaks to

¶21

WRIB No. 143 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

petitioners and private respondents.

¶24

Matter requires consideration.

¶25

Let counter affidavit be filed by Respondents No. 6, 7 & 8 within a period of four weeks. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the petitioners for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶26

List/Put up this matter on 10.04.2026.

¶27

Till next date of listing, status quo in respect of the land of the petitioners and private respondents, subject matter of dispute, shall be maintained.

¶28

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶29

February 25, 2026

¶30

Satish

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Devi and 2 Others v. District Deputy Director of Consolidation / D.M., Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Devi and 2 Others v. District Deputy Director of Consolidation / D.M., Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh and 4 Others vs Smt. Renu Singh and 2 Others

Sajivan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Mitesh Mahendra Dedhia Prop. M/S Vinay Trading Agencies Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Ashish Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Chaturvedi and 2 Others vs Ajanta Hospital and Ivf Centre Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director and Another

Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rudra Kumar vs Smt. Chitrarekha