HIFZURRAHMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Narayan Dutt Shukla and Mr. Rituvendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Mr. Vinay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Learned counsels for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submitted that writ petition be heard and disposed of finally without inviting any counteraffidavit in the matter.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Village Sherwadeeh, Tappa Banganwa, Pargana Amroha, Teshil Haraiya, District Basti came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act long back. The Village in question has been denotified under Sec. 52 of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1985. In the basic year of the consolidation operation, one Jamiluddin son of Rafiuddin was recorded in the khata No. 4 and Jamiluddin remained recorded in C.H. Form 45. After the death of Jamiluddin, the name of Maimuna Begum was recorded over the plot in question. According to contesting respondents, Maimuna Begum had executed a registered sale deed on 27/5/2016 in their favour. Petitioners' name was recorded in the proceeding under Rule 109A of the U.P.C.H. Rules vide order dtd. 18/1/2021 on the basis of the order dtd. 31/7/1984 alleged to be passed in their favour in case Nos. 1134, 1135, 1136 under Sec. 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. On the basis of the restoration application filed against the order dtd. 18/1/2021 passed in the proceeding under Rule 109A of the U.P.C.H. Rules, the order dtd. 18/1/2021 was set aside vide subsequent order dtd. 23/4/2021. Against the order dtd. 31/7/1984 passed in case Nos. 1134, 1135, 1136, restoration application was filed on 19/8/2021 before Consolidation Officer in which orders dtd. 11/11/2021, 17/11/2021 and 5/1/2022 were passed. An objection dtd. 7/12/2021 under Sec. 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of the petitioners praying that their name be recorded over the plot in question after granting benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as case No. 410 under Sec. 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against the order dtd. 5/1/2022, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed a recall application dtd. 17/1/2022 and Muimuna Begum also filed a restoration application dtd. 17/1/2022 against the order dtd. 5/1/2022. The aforementioned restoration application dtd. 17/1/2022 was heard and rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 16/12/2022. Against the order dtd. 16/12/2022, a revision under Sec. 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 which was registered as case No. 819 computerized case No. 202354171400000001 under Sec. 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation/ respondent No. 2. The aforementioned revision was heard and decided under the impugned order dtd. 4/12/2024 allowing the revision setting aside the orders dtd. 11/11/2021, 17/11/2021, 5/1/2022, 16/12/2022 and directing to record the plot No. 1022 area 0100 as banjar in the revenue records as well as proceeding under Sec. 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and Rule 109A of the U.P.C.H. Rules were ordered to be dropped accordingly. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:-