Allahabad High Court

FATEH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The impugned orders are not infirm; the CO’s order is interlocutory and not appealable, and the consolidation proceedings must be finalized under Section 9 within the stipulated time.

Summary

The petitioner challenged a series of orders relating to Khata No. 418 in Etah district, alleging that the Consolidation Officer’s (CO) order of 11 July 2024 allowing objections under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings (CH) Act was improperly appealable and that the subsequent dismissal of the appeal and revision were illegal. The court examined whether the CO’s order was interlocutory and thus not subject to appeal under Section 11(1) of the CH Act, and whether a fresh CH Form 5 could be issued. It held that the CO’s order was merely a procedural notice, not appealable, and that once a CH Form 5 is issued, objections must be dealt with under Section 9, with no provision for a new form. The court found no infirmity in the orders of the CO, SOC and DDC and directed the final record officer to complete the Section 9 proceedings within four months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with a direction to finalize the consolidation process.

Issues considered

Whether the Consolidation Officer’s order dated 11 July 2024 is appealable under Section 11(1) of the CH Act.
Whether a fresh CH Form 5 can be issued after objections have been raised.
Whether the dismissal of the appeal and revision by the SOC and DDC respectively were legally valid.
Whether the proceedings under Section 9 of the CH Act have been concluded.

Legislation cited

Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 11(1), 9, 9A(2)
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 210

Subjects

land consolidation
khata
CH Form 5
interlocutory order
appealability
revision
Section 9
Section 11
Uttar Pradesh revenue law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 3343 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 418, comprised of Gata No.819, 868, 369, 870, 944 area 0.730,
0.0120, 0.4660, 0.3310 hectares, situated in village Ghumari, Pargana Barna,
Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah. The said Khata 418 was recorded in the name
of Ram Naresh, respondent no. 5, on the strength of an order which was
subject matter of revision number 69, 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 418, area 0.829 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
WRIB No. 3343 of 2026
2

the CH Act, and the petitioner filed her reply to the objections. The CO vide
order dated 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. 105 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. 408 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 418 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. 418 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)
WRIB No. 3343 of 2026
3

Etah, in furtherance of the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act. There
is no infirmity or illegality in the order.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…