FATEH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - B No. - 2935 of 2026

Fateh Singh
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                  :   Ram Bahadur Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   C.S.C., Manjul Mishra

Court No. - 50
                 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the
learned standing counsel for the state respondents 1 to 4.

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the notice to the
private respondent no. 5, is being dispensed with.

The writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 11.7.2024, order
dated 26.11.2025, and order dated 25.4.2026, passed by the CO, SOC and
the DDC, Etah.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to Khata
number 396, comprised of Gata No. 864, area 1.793 hectares, situated in
village Ghumari, Pargana Barna, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah. The said
Khata 229 was recorded in the name of Ram Naresh, respondent no. 5, on
the strength of an order which was subject matter of revision number 407,
under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The proceedings of the
said revision was stayed on the intervention of the consolidation operations
in the village. The name of Ram Naresh, respondent no. 5, came to be
recorded over Khata No. 229, containing Gata number 864, area 1.793
hectares, vide order of the SO dated 9.11.2022, and the same was reflected
in the CH Form 5 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). An application was
moved on behalf of the petitioner dated 13.12.2022 to correct the entry in
CH Form 5. The entry was corrected by the ACO vide order dated
16.12.2022 in the CH Form 5 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The
respondent no. 5 filed objections under section 9A(2) of the CH Act, and the
petitioner filed her reply to the objections. The CO vide order dated
                                                           WRIB No. 2935 of 2026
                                 2


11.7.2024 allowed the objections of respondent no. 5, directing the parties to
submit their objections at the time of publication of notification under
section 9 of the CH Act. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
11.7.2024, preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 104 of 2024, under section
11(1) before the SOC, Etah, which appeal was dismissed vide order dated
26.11.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed revision before the DDC, being
Revision No. 407 of 2025, which too has been dismissed vide order dated
25.4.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the name of the petitioner
stood recorded over khata number 396 in the basic year Khatauni. The
parties have been litigating since 1994. The case filed by the respondent
Ram Naresh before the SDO Aliganj, Etah, was partly allowed by order
dated 13.6.1999, and the order dated 1.10.1994 was set aside. However, the
proceedings stood abated on the intervention of the consolidation operations.
The findings of the courts below are illegal, perverse, and liable to be set
aside. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned standing counsel on the other hand submits that the consolidation
authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders which call for no
interference by this court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be
dismissed in limne.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
records, I find that the orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity
warranting an interference by this court.

The DDC, Etah, in his order dated 25.4.2026 has rightly observed that once
CH Form 5 has been issued, any objections in respect thereof is to be dealt
with in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the CH Act. There is
no provision to issue fresh CH Form 5. The CO under the order dated
11.7.2024 has merely issued notices to the tenure holders affected by Khata
No. 396 in terms of section 9 of the CH Act. The order dated 11.7.2024 is
interlocutory and no appeal is maintainable against the said order under
section 11(1) of the CH Act. The court further finds that the revision was
preferred by the petitioner. The DDC has dismissed the revision and has
required the parties to appear before the consolidation officer (final records)
Etah, in furtherance of the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act. There
is no infirmity or illegality in the order.
                                                                                              WRIB No. 2935 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that pursuant to the order of
                                    the DDC dated 25.4.2026, the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act
                                    have not been brought to its logical end. He submits that a direction be
                                    issued to the CO (Final Record), Etah, respondent no. 4, to finalize the
                                    proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act within a time frame fixed by this
                                    court.

                                    Learned standing counsel appearing for the state respondents has no
                                    objection to the said proposition, but submits that the proceedings may have
                                    been finalized.

                                    Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the CO (Final
                                    Record), Etah, Respondent No. 4 to finalize the proceedings under section 9
                                    of the CH Act, if not already finalized, within four months from the date of
                                    service of the order of this court before him, strictly in accordance with law.

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Deepak/
                                                                                        (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad