SANJEEV KUMARversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    WRIT - B No. - 4365 of 2025

Sanjeev Kumar
                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Vinod
                            Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambuj Srivastava, C.S.C., Kaushal
                            Kishore    Mani,  Pankaj   Kumar
                            Srivastava

Court No. - 54
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Ambuj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. K.K.
Mani, learned counsel for the gram sabha and Mr. Hari Om Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that village was notified under Section 4
of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as
the U.P.C.H. Act) by way of notification issued on 16.05.1989. Village
was notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act by way of notification
issued on 28.02.2013. The Writ Petition No. 40184 of 2013 filed
challenging the notification dated 28.02.2013 issued under Section 6
of U.P.C.H. Act, was entertained but the same was finally dismissed
by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2026. Petitioner has applied for
recording of his name under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis
of registered sale deed alleged to be executed in his favour on
13.7.2020. Consolidation Officer directed to record the name of the
petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2020. Against the order of
Consolidation Officer dated 22.12.2020, appeal under Section 11(1)
of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no. 6 and Settlement Officer
of Consolidation vide order dated 17.10.2024 allowed the appeal, set
                                                        WRIB No. 4365 of 2025
                               2


aside the order dated 22.12.2020 and sent the matter back before
Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of
U.P.C.H. Act afresh. Against the order dated 17.10.2024, restoration
application was filed on behalf of petitioner on 24.10.2024 and
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 13.02.2025 set
aside the order dated 17.10.2024 and restored the proceeding of
appeal on its original number. Against the order dated 13.2.2025,
revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by
respondent no.6 and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order
dated 06.05.2025 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated
13.02.2025 and maintained the earlier appellate order dated
17.10.2024 as well as directed the parties to appear before
Consolidation Officer for fresh adjudication of dispute under Section
12 of U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this petition filed for the following relief.:-

     "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.5.2025
     passed by respondent no. 2 (D.D.C. Saharanpur) in
     revision no.145/2025 (Shokendra Kumar Vs. Sanjeev
     Kumar)(Annexure -1 to this writ petition.

     ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     mandamus          commanding         and        directing     the
     Respondents       not    to    interfere   in    the   peaceful
     possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Settlement Officer
of Consolidation after allowing the petitioner's restoration application
has restored the proceeding of appeal on its original number as such
revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.6
was not maintainable. He further submitted that Deputy Director of
Consolidation has illegally set aside the appellate order and directed
the parties to appear before Consolidation Officer for fresh
                                                        WRIB No. 4365 of 2025
                               3


adjudication of dispute which has already been adjudicated by the
Consolidation Officer in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that writ petition
filed against notification issued under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act has
been dismissed by this Court, as such the claim set up by petitioner
for recording of his name under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be
maintained. He further submitted no interference is required in the
matter and direction be issued to Consolidation Officer to pass
appropriate order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner initiated
under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that village in question has been
notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act on 28.2.2013. There is no
dispute about the fact that earlier writ petition challenging the
notification issued under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act has been
dismissed by this court on 16.3.2026.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter,
perusal of section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant, which is as
under:-

Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act

     Cancellation of 6(1) 1[notification ]under Section 4- (1) It shall
     be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the 1
     [notification] made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or
     any part of the area specified therein.

     (2) Where a 1[notification[ has been cancelled in respect of
     any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the
     final order relating to the correction of land records, if any,
     passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be
     under consolidation operations with effect from the date of
     the cancellation.
                                                     WRIB No. 4365 of 2025
                              4


8. It is material to mention that village in question was notified
under Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act on 28.2.2013 and writ petition
challenging the notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act has
been dismissed by this Court on 16.3.2026 as such the
consolidation officer cannot entertain the claim initiated under
Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of sale deed executed on
13.7.2020. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation
directing the parties to appear before Consolidation Officer for
consideration of claim initiated under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act
cannot be sustained in the eye of law as village in question has
already been notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act.

9. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal
under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act should be decided in
pursuance    of   appellate       order   dated   13.2.2025    is    also
misconceived, as village in question has been notified under
Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act on 28.2.2013 and writ petition
challenging the notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act has
been dismissed by this Court on 16.3.2026.

10. The law is well settled that final orders passed before issuance
of notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act shall be given effect
in record as provided under Section 6 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the
instant matter, no order was passed by Consolidation Court before
issuance of notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
impugned revisional order dated 6.5.2025 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside and same is
hereby set aside with modification that matter will not proceed
before consolidation officer as village has already been notified
under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act.The petitioner will initiate proper
proceeding as provided under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the
                                                                                     WRIB No. 4365 of 2025
                                                               5


                                    basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 13.7.2020 in favour of
                                    petitioner.

                                    12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally.



                                                                              (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    PS*




Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad