MOHD. AYUB Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri A.K. Baranwal, learned standing counsel for the state respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to the plots, as mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, which are situated in Nandoan, Tehsil Nizamabad, Azamgarh. The con-solidation proceeding initiated in the village in question, has come to an end by way of issuance of notification dtd. 16/2/2013 under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the U.P. C.H. Act"). The objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was alleged to be filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 on 1/7/2012 but the same was misplaced accordingly another objection was filled on 28/5/2013 along with prayer for con-donation of delay, stating that plot in question is waqf property and petitioners have no concern with the plot in question. It is also mentioned in the objection filed by respondent No. 4 that waqf was managed by Smt. Fahima Bibi and after her death, her brother became manager of the waqf. It is also mentioned that basis of the claim is waqf nama dtd. 14/2/1934. On the basis of the aforementioned objection filed by respondent No. 4, report was called by respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer from Assistant Consolidation Officer who submitted his report on 30/9/2013, stating that name of the petitioners were recorded over the plot in question. Petitioners filed their counter objection against the objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act filed by respondent No. 4, stating that plot in question was not the l and of Hazrat Bari Tala. It is also mentioned by the petitioners that after 1934, several times settlement has taken place but no objection was filed by respondent No. 4, as such, the objection of the respondent No. 4 is barred by limitation. Respondent No. 4 filed an application on 22/8/2017, stating that earlier objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed on 1/7/2012 but the same was misplaced, hence fresh objection was filed on 28/5/2013. The Consolidaton Officer vide order dtd. 17/1/2023 rejected the objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent No. 4 as not maintainable. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dtd. 17/1/2023, revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 30/6/2023, setting aside the order dtd. 17/1/2023 and remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the objection on merit within a period of 6 months. Against the revisional order dtd. 30/6/2023, petitioners filed Writ B No. 2622 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 9/8/2023 with the observation that in case any objection is taken before the Consolidation officer with regard to legal effect, if any, of the notification issued under Sec. 52(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act, the Consolidation Officer shall at the first instance consider the objection after hearing both the parties and pass reasoned order in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dtd. 9/8/2023 passed by this Court, petitioners filed an application dtd. 25/9/2023 before the Consolidation Officer to decide the limitation and maintainability first in the proceeding under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against the application of the petitioner dtd. 25/9/2023, objection was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, stating that application filed by the petitioners on 25/9/2023 should be rejected and objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act should be decided on merit after framing issues. The Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 24/5/2025 has held that application dtd. 25/9/2023 filed by the petitioners shall be disposed of alongwith the issues which will be framed in the proceeding, accordingly date was fixed for framing of issues. Hence, this writ petition against the order dtd. 24/5/2025 passed by the Consolidation Officer for the following reliefs :

(3.) On 19/8/2025, five issues were framed in the proceeding under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act. Issue No. 4 was framed with respect to the maintainability of the objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act dtd. 1/7/2012 in the light of the notification issued under Sec. 52(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act dtd. 16/2/2013 and Issue No. 5 was framed as to whether the objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act dtd. 28/5/2013 was filed after issuance of notification under Sec. 52(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act dtd. 16/2/2013.