Allahabad High Court
BHAL CHANDRA AND 2 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The impugned orders are set aside and the petitioners are entitled to permission to construct up to 300 sq m under Section 5(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Summary
The petitioners, recorded tenure‑holders of plots 270, 271 and 272 in Rasulpur Mawaiya, Prayagraj, applied to the Settlement Officer under Section 5(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for permission to construct a house. The officer rejected the application, stating that permission could be granted only up to 300 sq m while the petitioners had allegedly sought 2,800 sq m. The petitioners clarified in a reply that they required permission only for 300 sq m and filed a revision, which was dismissed as non‑maintainable. The High Court examined the statutory provision, the Consolidation Manual and a 2005 circular, concluding that the officer’s rejection was based on a misconceived ground. It set aside both the revision order and the settlement officer’s order and directed the officer to register the petitioners’ application and grant permission for construction up to 300 sq m within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Settlement Officer was justified in rejecting the application under Section 5(1)(c) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on the ground that permission cannot be granted beyond 300 sq m when the petitioners sought only 300 sq m.
- Whether the revision order dismissing the petitioners’ application was maintainable.
- Whether a pending dispute under Section 9‑A(2) of the Act bars the grant of permission under Section 5(1)(c).
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Construction permission
- Consolidation of Holdings
- Section 5(1)(c)
- Tenure holder
- Land reform
- Writ of certiorari
- Mandamus
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 5051 of 2025
Bhal Chandra And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Laxmi Kant Tripathi, Shashi Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 8.12.2025, where by
this Court directed the learned standing counsel to obtain instruction
in the matter, instruction dated 16.12.2025 sent by Settlement Officer
of Consolidation, Prayagraj, filed before this Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Laxmi Kant Triparthi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing counsel for the State-
respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are recorded tenure
holder of plot no.270, area 0.0400 hectare, plot no. 271, area 0.0600
hectare, plot no. 272, area 0.1800 hectare, situated at Village
Rasulpur Mawaiya, Pargana-Kewai, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj.
Petitioners filed an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
U.P.C.H. Act') before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj,
with the prayer that petitioners be permitted to construct house over
plot nos. 270, 271, 272. On the aforesaid petitioners' application,
report was called for from the Consolidation Officer, Handia,
accordingly, a report was submitted by Consolidation Officer in the
aforementioned proceeding. The proceeding was registered as Case
No.22 of 2025, Computerized Case No.20255402300000484.
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
2
Respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order
dated 24.03.2025, rejected the petitioners' application filed under
Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act on the ground that permission can
be granted up to the area 300 sq. meter, while the petitioners have
filed application for construction. Petitioners challenged the order of
Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 24.03.2025 by way of
revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned
revision filed by petitioners was heard and dismissed as not
maintainable by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District
Magistrate, Prayagraj, vide order dated 11.08.2025. Hence this writ
petition for the following relief.
"a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the
respondent no. 2 in Case No.0746 of 2025, Computerized Case
No.20255402300000746 (Bhal Chandra & others Vs. State of
U.P.) (Annexure No.7) .
b. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the
respondent no.3 in Case No.0484/2025, Computerized Case
No.20255402300000484, (Rajendra Prasad & others Vs. State
of U.P.) (Annexure No. 6).
c. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.3 to accord permission for
construction of pakka house in area having 300 sq. meters
comprising Gata no. 270, 271, 272 situated in village
Rasoolpur, Mavaiva, Pargana Kevai, Tehsil Handiya, District
Prayagraj."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are
recorded owner of plot nos. 270, 271, 272, as such application under
Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of petitioners
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
3
before Settlement Officer of Consolidation for raising construction
over the plot in dispute, but application has been rejected on
misconceived ground. He submitted that revision filed by petitioners
has also been dismissed without considering the grounds set up in
revision. He submitted that Respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, has not considered the reply/rejoinder affidavit dated
22.7.2024 filed on behalf of petitioner stating categorically that
permission to raise construction be granted up to 300 sq. meter area,
as such there was no occasion to reject the petitioners' application on
the ground that permission cannot be granted beyond 300 sq. meter.
He further submitted that in any case permission up to 300 sq. meter
cannot be refused by Settlement Officer of Consolidation under
Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act, if applicants are recorded owner of
the plot in question. He submitted that impugned orders passed by
consolidation authorities should be set aside and direction be issued
to respondent no.2 to consider the petitioners' application for raising
construction over plot no. 270, 271, 272 upto 300 sq.meter.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned
orders passed by consolidation authorities as there is no mention
about the area over which the petitioners are interested to raise
construction. He further submitted that in respect of title/partition of
plot nos.270, 271 and 272, dispute under Section 9-A (2) of U.PCH
Act is pending before Consolidation Officer, as such permission
under Section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be granted. He
submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioners should be
dismissed.
6. I have considered argument advanced by learned Counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and
perused the record.
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
4
7. There is no dispute about the facts that petitioners are recorded
owner of the plot in question and application under section 5(1)(c) of
U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioners has been rejected by Settlement
Officer of Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that
revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed as not maintainable.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter,
perusal of section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act will be necessary, which is
as under.
5. Effect of [notification under Section 4(2)].-(1) Upon
the publication of the notification [under sub-section
(2) of Section 4] in the Official Gazette, the
consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject
to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified
thereunder till the publication of notification under
Section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case
may be, ensue in the area to which the [notification
under Section 4(2)] relates, namely-
c. notwithstanding anything contained in the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolidation and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder,
except with the permission in writing of the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously
obtained shall-
(1) use his holding or any part
thereof for purposes not connected
with agriculture, horticulture or
animal husbandry including
pisciculture and poultry farming; or
(ii) Omitted by U.P. Act No. 30 of
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
5
1991 (w.e.f. 19.2.1991);
Provided that a tenure-holder may continue to use his
holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which
it was in use prior to the date specified in the
notification issued '[under sub-section (2) of Section 4].
9. It is material to mention that permission for raising construction
under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act can be granted only upto the
area measuring 300 sq. meter as provided under U.P. Consolidation
Manual. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation while rejecting the
petitioners' application under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act has
mentioned that permission can be granted up to 300 sq. meters,
while the petitioners have prayed for construction over the area 2800
square meter which cannot be allowed.
10. It is material to mention that petitioners have filed reply dated
22.7.2024 in the aforementioned proceeding under section 5(1) (c) of
U.P.C.H. Act that petitioners are only interested to raise construction
over area 300 sq. meter in their share without affecting the right of
other co-sharer but without considering the reply of the petitioner, the
application for permission filed on behalf of petitioners has been
rejected on misconceived ground.
11. The perusal of the para nos.6 and 7 of the prayer made in the
reply/ rejoinder affidavit dated 22.07.2024 will be also relevant, which
is as under:-
"6. यह िक ्ऺाथर्गणो का कहना है िक जो उ्व भूिम पर जो िहस्सा आये उसी
भूभाग में से मा्ऴ 300 वगर्मीटर पर जानवरों को रखने के िलए पक्का मकान बनाने
की अनुमित चाहता है जो ्ऺदान िकया जावे।
7. यह िक उ्व भूिम पर पहले भी मड़ही, जानवरों के चरही, हौदा, हैण्डपम्प व
लैटिरग आिद सभी ्ऺाथर्गण व उनके पिरवार वाले आबादी के रूप में उपयोग कर रहे
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
6
है। इस आधार पर मकान बनाने के िलए अनुमत िदया जाना आवश्यक है।
अतएवं ्शीमान जी से ्ऺाथर्ना है िक गाटा सं० 270, 271 व 272 पर ्ऺाथर्गणों के
िहस्से वाले भूिम पर मकान बनाने की अनुमित ्ऺदान करने की कृपा करें।
िदनांक- 22/07/2024
्ऺाथर्गण
राजेन््श ्ऺसाद आिद"
12. Perusal of prayer made in the aforementioned application under
section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act filed on behalf of petitioners will also
be relevant, which is as under:-
"्ऺाथर्ना
अतः ्शीमान जी से ्ऺाथर्ना है िक चकबन्दी अिधकारी हिण्डया को िनदरॏिशत िकया
जावे िक जाँच आख्या कराकर ्ऺाथर्गण को उ्व गाटा पर मकान िनमार्ण करने की
अनुमित ्ऺदान करने की कृपा की जावे ।
िदनांक 06/572024
्ऺाथर्गण
राजेन््श ्ऺसाद
भालचन््श
फूलचन््श
्ऺेमचन््श
पु्ऴगण बैजनाथ
समस्त िनवासीगण ्षाम महुआ्तर दुमदुमा
परगना केवाई, तहसील हिण्डया जनपद ्ऺयागराज।"
13. Perusal of paragraph no.5 of the Circular No.3150/G-415/2002
dated 8.6.2005 issued by Consolidation Commissioner U.P.Lucknow
in respect to provision contained under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H.
Act will be also relevant, which is as under:-
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
7
"्ऺेषक,
चकबन्दी आयु्व,
उ्तर ्ऺदेश, लखनऊ।
सेवा में,
1. समस्त सहायक / बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी, उ्तर ्ऺदेश।
2. समस्त उप/संयु्व संचालक चकबन्दी, उ्तर ्ऺदेश।
3. समस्त िजला उप संचालक चकबन्दी / िजलािधकारी, उ्तर ्ऺदेश।
संख्या: 3150/जी0-415/2002
िदनांक 8 जून, 2005
िवषय : उ०्ऺ० जोत चकबन्दी अिधिनयम 1953 की धारा-5(ग) के सम्बन्ध में
िदशा िनदरॏश।
1. ……………………………
2……………………………………
3…………………………………….
4…………………………………..
5. उ्व के पिर्ऺेष्य में सम्यक िवचारोपरान्त यह िनणर्य िलया गया है िक धारा-5(ग
) के दुरूपयोग को रोकने हेतु चकबन्दी अिधिनयम व चकबन्दी मैनुअल के ्ऺािवधानों
के अितिर्व िनम्निलिखत मागर् िनदरॏशों का भी पालन सुिनि्ात िकया जाये :-
क- धारा-5 (ग) में दौरान चकबन्दी मूलजोत के काश्तकार को उसके स्वयं के
उपयोग हेतु अिधकतम 300 वगर्मीटर की अनु्ञा अिधिनयमव मैनुअल के ्ऺािवधानों
के अन्तगर्त परी्षण व सन्तुि्ि के उपरान्त ्ऺदान की जायेगी।
ख– धारा-5(ग) के अन्तगर्त आवेदन, स्वीकार करने या न करने की दशा में पािरत
आदेश स्वतः स्प्ि व सकारण हो।
उ्व आदेशों का कठोरतम् अनुपालन सुिनि्ात िकया जाये।
भवदीय,
(पी०के० झा)
चकबन्दी आयु्व,
उ०्ऺ०, लखनऊ"
WRIB No. 5051 of 2025
8
14. Perusal of application filed under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act,
reply dated 22.07.2024 filed on behalf of petitioners in the proceeding
under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act, report submitted in the
proceeding under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act as well the
provisions contained under the Act demonstrate that in any case the
permission can be granted under Section 5 (1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act up
to the area 300 sq. meter, as such there is no difficulty to grant
permission up to 300 sq. meter to the petitioners.
15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2-
Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 24.03.2025 passed
by respondent no.3- Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to
be set aside and same are hereby set aside.
16. The writ petition is allowed. Respondent no.3-Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj, is directed to register the
petitioners' application under section 5(1) (c) of U.P.C.H. Act on its
original number and pass order for granting permission to petitioners
to raise construction up to area 300 sq. meter. The aforesaid exercise
shall be completed by respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, Prayagraj, within period of six weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order. No notice has been issued
issued to respondent no.5/Tribhuvan Nath by this Court, as such
respondent no.3-Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall afford
opportunity to respondent no.5/Tribhuvan Nath before granting
permission under section 5(1)(c) of U.P.C.H. Act.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
May 7, 2026
PS*
Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…