The court emphasized the necessity of consolidating related cases to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure judicial efficiency under the U.P. Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri. Divyanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with. It is for the reasons that no prejudice would be caused to them and even after appearance they would not be in a position to dispute factual aspect of the case and the process would delay the disposal of cases in issue as also the present petition.

3. Present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 2.1.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No. 3657 of 2023/Bijnore (Computerized Case No. R20231316003657) "Akram alias Janib v. Mohammad Kasim" Under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari, Dhampur, District-Bijnore in Case No. 254 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202313160300254) "Akram alias Janib Mohammad v. Smt. Rajiya and others" Under Section 225 (Cha) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice."

4. Vide impugned order dated 02.01.2024 the respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, dismissed the revision No. 3657 of 2023, Computerized Case No. R20231316003657 (Akram @ Janib v. Mohammad Kasim) instituted under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") and by the impugned order dated 02.01.2024, respondent No.2 affirmed the order dated 30.10.2023, which is also in issue in the present petition.

5. Vide order dated 30.10.2023 respondent No.3-Up Zila Adhikari, Dhampur, District-Bijnore, rejected the application of the petitioner preferred under Section 225-F of the Code of 2006. The order dated 30.10.2023, being relevant, reads as under:-

6. It appears form the record that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 225-F of the Code of 2006 praying therein to consolidate the cases i.e. Case Nos. T20191360306170/2019 (Raziya v. Rabiya) and T-202113160300849/2021 (Shuaib Aslam v. Kasim) and both these cases relate to Khasra No. 3412 situate at Village-Syohara, Tehsil-Dhampur, District-Bijnore.

7. The order impugned dated 30.10.2023, affirmed vide impugned order dated 02.01.2024, indicates that while passing these orders the authority concerned have note taken note of Sub-Section 2 of Section 225-F of the Code of 2006 as also the fact that the application in issue was moved for consolidating the cases pending in the same revenue court.

8. The law says that to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings as also the conflicting decision, the cases should be consolidated and decided by the common order. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kazimunnisa v. Zakia Sultana; (2018) 11 SCC 208.

9. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that matter requires interference.

10. Accordingly, the order(s) 02.01.2024 and 30.10.2023 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3-Up Zila Adhikari, Dhampur, District-Bijnore, to decide the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 225-F afresh, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.