Allahabad High Court
RAM PYARE CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition for mandamus was dismissed as infructuous because the order sought to be enforced had been set aside by a revision and remanded for fresh consideration.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Pyare Chauhan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer of Birno Tehsil, Ghazipur, to decide his application filed under Section 109 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and to enforce an order dated 31 March 2012. The Court sought instructions from the State and received a report indicating that the original order of 31 March 2012 had been challenged and set aside by a revision order dated 17 February 2026 under Section 48(1) of the Act, with the matter remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration. Because the earlier order was nullified, the petitioner’s request to enforce it became meaningless. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was infructuous and consigned it to the records. The petition was therefore dismissed without any further direction.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce an order that has been set aside by a revision under Section 48(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
- Whether the petition remains maintainable after the original order was annulled and the matter remanded.
Legislation cited
- Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — s. 109, 42A, 48(1)
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 — s. Rule 109-A
Subjects
- mandamus
- consolidation of holdings
- revision
- infructuous petition
- section 48(1)
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1609 of 2026
Ram Pyare Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"I) Issue a writ, order ог direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent no. 2/ Consolidation Officer Birno Tehsil Jakhaniya,
District Ghazipur to decide the Application dated 26.05.2012 filed under
Section 109 of C.H. Act for compliance of order dated 31.03.2012 passed
by Respondent No. 2 in Case No. 659 of 2012, under Section 42A of C.H.
Act (Sukhdev Vs. State), within short stipulated period as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the interest of the justice."
3. By the order of this Court a direction was issued to the learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents to obtain instructions in the
matter. Today when the case was taken up, the instructions sent by
Consolidation Officer, Nandganj, Ghazipur, has been placed before the
Court, which is taken on record.
4. A perusal of the instructions shows that in the pending proceedings
under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, by
the order dated 27.3.2015, Ramesh, Suresh, Akshay Lal Sons of Chadar,
were impleaded as party.
5. The aforesaid persons challenged the order dated 31.3.2012, passed in
Case No. 659 of 2012, in revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P.
WRIB No. 1609 of 2026
2
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The said revision was allowed by
the order dated 17.2.2026, setting aside the order dated 31.3.2012,
relegating the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the
application of the petitioner afresh.
6. In view of the aforesaid fact, the prayer made by the petitioner for
implementation of the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 31.3.2012
is rendered infrucutous.
7. The writ petition is accordingly consigned to records.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 18, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu
Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…