MUNNA PRASAD GIRIversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, AZAMGARH DIVISION, AND 6 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 2959 of 2026

Munna Prasad Giri
                                                          .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Azamgarh
Division, And 6 Others                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Chetan Chatterjee, Kavindra Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Singh, Nitish
                                 Kumar Singh, Rameshwar Prasad
                                 Shukla

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

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is
taken on record.

Heard Shri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri
R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the Gram
Panchayat concerned as also Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the contesting respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 7.1.2026 passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh Zone, District Ballia
in Revision, order dated 20.6.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, Division Azamgarh, Ballia, in Appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to
proceedings under Section 53 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that consolidation operations
in three villages, namely, Ganghara, Bagheji and Khap Shikandra were
notified by issuance of a Notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act on
9.2.2015. Subsequently, some difficulties were faced in carry out the
consolidation operations in villages Ganghara and Begheji, District Ballia
and the Notification under Section 4 (2) was cancelled by Notification
under Section 6 (1) of the Act on 20.1.2017.
                                                         WRIB No. 2959 of 2026
                                2


It is next submitted that Gatas Nos. 2, 5 and 12 are the original holdings
of the petitioner and he is in settled possession thereof. The Settlement
Officer of Consolidation vide exparte order dated 20.6.2025 passed under
Section 21 (2) of the Act altered the chak of the petitioner without
granting any opportunity of hearing and without ascertaining services of
notice upon the petitioner granted low lying land to the petitioner and the
original holding has been allotted to the private respondents. Learned
counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to the recitals
contained in the order dated 20.6.2025 of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, particularly, para 6 thereof submits that the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation exercising the powers under Section 53 of the
Act consolidated total of 17 plots area 1.99 acres Navin Parti in public
interest. The plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 were not mentioned amongst the plots
mentioned in Para 6. However, in the operative portion the Plot Nos. 2, 5
and 12 of the petitioner were mentioned. The petitioner aggrieved by the
order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation depriving him of his
original holdings in Plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 filed a revision before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation assailing the order dated 20.6.2025.
The revision has been dismissed without adverting to the contentions of
the petitioner. It is also argued that the private respondents have been
given undue advantage by granting them land belonging to the petitioner
while the petitioner has been granted low lying land purportedly under the
grab of Section 53 proceedings for which the petitioner never consented
or compromised.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents as also
learned counsel for the private respondents have tried to justify the
impugned orders by submitting that the orders have been passed in public
interest.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

From the perusal of the order of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation dated 20.6.2025, it is borne out that proceedings under
Section 53 of the Act were drawn in respect of the plots mentioned in
Para 6 of the order as also Para 6 of the memo of the appeal filed by the
                                                                                             WRIB No. 2959 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    Gram Pradhan before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The plot
                                    Nos. 2, 5 and 12 belonging to the petitioner is not included in the said
                                    paras. A feeble attempt has been made by counsel for the respondents that
                                    the petitioner was impleaded in the memo of the appeal filed by the
                                    Pradhan and he had consented to the exchange. The said factum has been
                                    vehemently denied by the petitioner. The Court is not impressed by the
                                    submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the
                                    order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision of the
                                    petitioner reflects that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has declined
                                    indulgence on the ground that accepting the demand of the petitioner
                                    would result in allotment of chak in front of the house and Sahan of the
                                    Pankaj Giri, the respondent No. 4 and would be a constant bone of
                                    contention between the parties. In the opinion of the Court, this cannot be
                                    a ground to deny relief to the revisionist/petitioner and reject the revision.

                                    For all the above reasons, the impugned order dated 7.1.2026 passed by
                                    the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision as also the order dated
                                    20.6.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation so far as it
                                    affects the plot Nos. 2, 5 and 12 of the petitioner is set aside and the
                                    position of the chaks at the ACO level is maintained. The writ petition is
                                    accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.



                                                                                       (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Ravi Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad