Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186762

Court No. - 48

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3377 of 2023

Petitioner :- Chauhan Kalicharan

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh,Pramod Kumar

Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel.

2. In the present case, order passed by Consolidation Officer

under Section 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954 is being

challenged directly before this Court without availing

alternative remedy available under the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

judgment passed in Satgur Deen & Ors Vs. Deputy Director

of Consolidation & Ors, Consolidation No.18997 of 2017

decided on 21.8.2017 that writ petition would be maintainable

at the first instance against the order passed under Rule 109-A

of U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon

judgment of other co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Subba &

Ors Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia & Ors,

2008 (6) ADJ 352, wherein after considering all the earlier

judgments this Court has categorically held in paras 22 and 23

that:

"22. As noticed above, the Division Bench judgment in the case

of Smt. Krishna Devi (supra) as well as earlier Full Bench

judgment in the case of Shah Chaturbhuj (supra) had

considered the similar issues in context of other Statutes despite

the finality of the order as provided under U.P. Zamindari

Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The Division Bench in the

case of Smt. Krishna Devi (supra) held that revision under

Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms

Act, 1950 is not barred. The revisional power provided under

Section 48 is equally extensive and wide as revisional power

under Section 333 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms

Act, 1950. Hence, the above judgments apply to the facts of the

present case in full force. The Full Bench in the case of Ram

Swaroop (supra) after noticing that finality has been attached

to an order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 285-I, held

that said order is revisable under Section 333 of U.P.

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

23. The judgment in the case of Ram Pujan (supra) also fully

supports the view taken by me in this case. In Ram Pujan's case

same question fell for consideration as to whether an order

passed in appeal under Rule 109-A is revisable. This Court

after considering the provisions of Section 48 of U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, took the view that Deputy

Director of Consolidation can exercise the powers under

Section 48."

5. Above referred judgments were not placed before the co-

ordinate bench which has decided Satgur Deen (supra),

therefore, I am of the opinion that in light of Subba & Ors

(supra), the Revisional Authority has jurisdiction to consider a

challenge to an order passed in proceedings under Rule 109A of

U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954.

6. In view of the above, without entering into the merits of this

case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the

petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation to

file a revision petition against the impugned order dated

23.8.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer Katghara, District-

Jaunpur, respondent no.2 and if any revision is filed within a

period of 15 days from today, same shall be considered in

accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period

of three months thereafter and the Revisional Authority will

also consider the prayer for interim relief within a period of

four weeks from the date revision is filed if circumstances so

warrants.

Order Date :- 26.9.2023

SB

Digitally signed by :-

SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad