Chandrapal Singh And 7 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4404 of 2025
Chandrapal Singh And 7 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6
Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mahendra Kumar
Tripathi
Court No. - 54
A.F.R
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for respondent nos.4 & 6 and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to plot
nos. 25, 34, 86, 90, 91/1 situated in Village - Takipur,
Pargana - Morthal, Tahsil- Koil, District - Aligarh.
Consolidation operation started in the village in question in
the year 1973. Against the basic year entry of the plot in
question one objection was filed by respondent no.7 -
Bhagwat Swaroop, which was rejected by the
Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.11.1974. Against
the order of Consolidation Officer, appeal under Section 11
(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter
referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed by respondent no.
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
2
4, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.9.1975.
Revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by
respondent no. 7 was allowed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation vide order dated 27.5.1978. Against the
order dated 27.5.1978 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, the Writ Petition No. 6442 of 1978, which is
stated to be pending before this Court, was filed by Om
Prakash (father of respondent nos.4 to 6). Father of
petitioner nos.1 to 5 and grand father of petitioner nos.7 & 8
also filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H.
Act claiming right on the basis of adverse possession over
gata no. 27 for more than 12 years. The objection of
petitioners' predecessor was contested by the father of
respondent nos.4 to 6. Consolidation Officer rejected the
objection vide order dated 30.11.1974, appeal filed by
predecessor of petitioners was dismissed vide order dated
20.9.1975. Revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed
by predecessor of petitioners was allowed vide order dated
24.10.1979. In the aforementioned revision petitioner nos.1
to 8 were substituted as heirs and legal representative of
Atar Singh. Against the revisional order dated 24.10.1979,
Om Prakash (father of respondent nos.4 to 6) filed a Writ-B
No.710 of 1980. The aforementioned writ petition was
decided vide judgement dated 5.7.2023 setting aside the
revisional order dated 24.10.1979 and remanded the matter
back before Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the
revision afresh. Against the final judgement dated 5.7.2023
passed by this Court, a restoration application dated
14.8.2023 was filed before this Court which was rejected
vide order dated 12.5.2025. In pursuance of the remand
order of this Court matter was proceeded before Deputy
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
3
Director of Consolidation, Aligarh and vide order dated
3.2.2025 the proceeding of revision was abated by Deputy
Director of Consolidation / Additional District Magistrate
(judicial), Aligarh on the ground that original records are not
available as well as the parties have not produced the
documents / record, which are in their possession so that
the record of the proceeding can be reconstructed. Hence
this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following
reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order
dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Aligarh, District-
Aligarh.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in thenature
of CERTIORARI quashing the proceeding of
the Case No.RST/0087/2025, pending before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Aligarh,
District-Aligarh.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of MANDAMUS commanding/directing
to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Aligarh,
District-Aligarh to allow the revision filed by
petitioner nos.1 to 5 alongwith Late Mahendra
Pal Singh."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 2.12.2025 and
passed the following order:-
"1. Stamp reporter has reported laches of 176
days in filing the writ petition, which has been
properly explained.
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
4
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that writ petition filed by private
respondents was allowed and matter was
remitted back before revisional Court to
decide the title revision on merit in
accordance with law. He submitted that after
remand order, the proceeding of title revision
has been abated on the misconceived
ground. He submitted that even notice was
not issued to the petitioners, who were
revisionists in the title revision. He submitted
that after passing of the order of abatement,
private respondents have filed an application
for deciding the revision on merit.
4. Matter requires consideration.
5. Issue notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7
returnable at an early date.
6. Steps be taken within ten days.
7. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 shall file counter
affidavit within six weeks.
8. Rejoinder affidavit can be filed within two
weeks thereafter.
9. List this matter on 06.02.2026."
4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.12.2025,
respondent no. 4, 5 & 6 have put in appearance through
counsel on 5.2.2026.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that against the basic year entry one set of objection was
filed by respondent no.7/ Bhagwat Swaroop, which was
rejected and the order was maintained in appeal. He
furthers submitted that the revision filed by respondent
no.7/ Bhagwat Swaroop was allowed in arbitrary manner.
He further submitted that the predecessor of the petitioners
also filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H.
Act claiming right on the basis of adverse possession over
Khata No.27 which was ultimately dismissed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that the writ
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
5
petition filed by father of respondent nos.4 to 6 was allowed
by this Court and matter was remitted back before Deputy
Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh but
Deputy Director of Consolidation has abated the
proceeding of title revision on the ground that the records
are not available. He further submitted that no opportunity
was afforded to petitioners before passing the order dated
3.2.2025, as such, the order dated 3.2.2025 passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation / Additional District
Magistrate (Judicial), Aligarh cannot be sustained in the
eye of law. He further submitted that the record of the
proceeding is to be re-constructed after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties to bring on record the
document / evidence which are in their possession so that
reconstruction can be made and matter can be decided on
merit in accordance with law. He further submitted that the
impugned order should be set aside and necessary
direction be issued to respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Aligarh to proceed in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for
respondent nos.4 to 6 submitted that revision filed by
predecessor of petitioners has been dismissed under the
impugned order as the records are not available. He further
submitted that in absence of the record, the matter cannot
be proceed, as such, the order passed by Settlement
Officer of Consolidation in favour of respondent nos.4 to 6
should be given finality between the parties. He further
submitted that the claim of adverse possession setup by
the predecessor of petitioners has not been proved, as
such, no right will accrue in favour of petitioners.
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
6
7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that Writ-B No.710 of
1980, Om Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
and another was decided finally vide judgment / order
dated 5.7.2023 setting aside the revisional order dated
24.10.1979 and matter was remitted back before Deputy
Director of Consolidation to decide the revision under
Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. There is also no dispute
about the fact that restoration application filed on behalf of
Kharag Singh against the final judgement/ order dated
5.7.2023 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated
12.5.2025. There is also no dispute about the fact that
proceeding of title revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.
Act filed by predecessor of petitioners has been abated
under the impugned order dated 3.2.2025.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the
matter, perusal of the revisional order dated 3.2.2025
abating the proceeding of title revision will be necessary,
which is as under:
"
आदेश पत्रक
:
न्यायालय उप संचालक चकबन्दी
: , :, :
मण्डल अलीगढ़ जनपद तहसील
:-RST/0067/2024
वाद संख्या
:-20245418200000067
कंप्यूटरीकृत वाद्र संख्या
अंतर सिंह बनाम ओम प्रकाश
:- 48(1), : , 1953
अंतर्गत धारा अधिनियम उ०प्र० जोत चकबन्दी अधिनियम
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
7
14.08.2023
प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक श्री अजय कुमार सिंघल पुत्र श्री ओम प्रकाश
4 , ,
निवासी हाल एल शताब्दी नगर शहर कोल अलीगढ़। कास्ताकार मौजा तकीपुर परगना
, ,
मोरथल तहसील कोल जिला अलीगढ का निस्तारण।
प्रार्थना पत्र दाता श्री अजय कुमार सिंघल पुत्र श्री ओम प्रकाश निवासी हाल एल 4 शताब्दी
नगर शहर कोल, अलीगढ़। कास्ताकार मौजा तकीपुर परगना, मोरथल, तहसील कोल, जिला
अलीगढ ने दिनांक 14.08.2023 को प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत कर मांग की है कि उक्त रिवीजन
संयुक्त संचालक आगरा कैम्प अलीगढ़ आदेश दिनांक 24.10.1979 प्रार्थी के पिता
ओमप्रकाश पुत्र श्री विहारीलाल के विरूद्ध उक्त रिवीजन स्वीकार किया गया था। आदेश दिनांक
24.10.1979 के बिरुद्ध मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में रिट संख्या बी-710/1980
ओमप्रकाश बनाम डी०डी०सी० आदि योजित हुई। दौरान विचाराधीन रिट ओमप्रकाश पुत्र श्री
विहारीलाल की मृत्यु हो चुकी थी उनके स्थान पर विजय कुमार सिंघल व अजय कुमार सिंघल
व संजय कुमार सिंघल पुत्रगण श्री ओमप्रकाश विधिक वारिस कायम हुए। मा० उच्च न्यायालय
इलाहाबाद में उक्त पत्रावली में पारित आदेश दिनांक 24.10.1979 को निरस्त करते हुए
आदेश दिनांक 05.07.2023 में पुनः सुनवाई हेतु पत्रावली को निर्णीत करने हेतु आदेश
पारित किये हैं। न्यायहित में रिट संख्या बी-710/1980 ओमप्रकाश बनाम डी०डी०सी० आदि
में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के अनुपालन में उक्त पत्रावली को तलब कर पक्षों को
सुनकर उक्त रिवीजन को निर्णीत किया जाये और अन्त में प्रार्थना की है कि उपरोक्त तथ्यों के
आधार पर रिट संख्या बी-710/1980 ओमप्रकाश बनाम डी०डी०सी० आदि में मा० उच्च
न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के अनुपालन में उक्त पत्रावली को तलब कर पक्षों को सुनकर उक्त
रिवीजन को निर्णीत किया जाये।
उक्त के कम में इस न्यायालय द्वारा उप संचालक चकबन्दी, अलीगढ़ द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक
24.10.1979, बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी, अलीगढ़ द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक
20.08.1975, चकबन्दी अधिकारी द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 30.11.1974 की
पत्रावलियों को न्यायालय में तलब करने हेतु 03 मांग पत्र भेजे गये जिस पर अरेंन्जर मोरथल
द्वारा उप संचालक चकबन्दी, अलीगढ़ की पत्रावली के मांग पत्र पर दिनांक 16.08.2023,
बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी, अलीगढ़ की पत्रावली के मांग पत्र पर 08.09.2023 तथा
चकबन्दी अधिकारी, अलीगढ़ के मांग पत्र पर दिनांक 08.09.2023 को आख्या प्रस्तुत कर
उल्लेख किया है कि उक्त पत्रावलियां तलफ हो चुकी है तथा न्यायालय में दिनांक
04.09.2023 को अजय कुमार सिंघल के द्वारा प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। प्रार्थना पत्र के
कम में दिनांक 06.10.2023 को फर्द अहकाम पर आदेश पारित किया गया कि उभय पक्ष
वादों से सम्बन्धित सक्ष्य एवं प्रतिलिपयां न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत करें, किन्तुं उनके द्वारा कोई ऐसा
साक्ष्य एवं प्रतिलिपयां प्रस्तुत नहीं की गयी जिससे वाद का निस्तारण गुणदोष पर किया जा
सके। तदोपरान्त इस कार्यालय के पत्र संख्या 645/ रीडर दिनांक 16.08.2024 के द्वारा
प्रभारी अधिकारी राजस्व अभिलेखागार, अलीगढ़ हेतु उक्त तीनों पत्रावलियों को तलफ किये
जाने की कार्यवाही में निर्धारित मानक प्रक्रिया का अनुपालन किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में विधि
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
8
सम्मत आख्या हेतु पत्र भेजा गया। उक्त पत्र के कम में प्रभारी अधिकारी राजस्व अभिलेखागार
के पत्र संख्या 736 / आर0आर0के0-2024 दिनांक 29.08.2024 के द्वारा अवगत कराया
गया कि उक्त तीनों पत्रावलियों को सचिव, राजस्व परिषद उ०प्र० अनुभाग-5 लखनऊ के पत्र
संख्या 129/ जी0-5-560/1959 दिनांक 24.12.1959 जो शासनादेश वीडिंग के सम्बन्ध
में दिये निर्देश का अनुपालन करते हुए प्रश्नगत तीनों पत्रावलियों की वीडिंग की गयी है।
चूंकि उपरोक्त प्रकरण में पक्षों को साक्ष्य एवं प्रतिलिपयां प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर दिया गया
था। उक्त के कम में वादी अजय कुमार सिंघल की ओर से मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योजित रिट
की प्रमाणित प्रति के साथ चकबन्दी अधिकारी के आदेश दिनांक 30.11.1974, बन्दोबस्त
चकबन्दी अधिकारी का आदेश दिनांक 20.09.1975, संयुक्त संचालक चकबन्दी का आदेश
दिनांक 24.10.1979 की प्रतिलिपियां प्रस्तुत की गयी है। प्रश्नगत निगरानी की कार्यवाही
स्वत्व से सम्बन्धित है। अतः किसी भी न्यायालय की मूल पत्रावली उपलब्ध न होने के कारण
साक्ष्य के अभाव में पत्रावली पर गुणदोष पर आदेश पारित किया जाना सम्भव नहीं है। ऐसी
स्थिति में उचित होगा कि वाद की कार्यवाही अवेट की जाये। वाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही पत्रावली
दाखिल दफ्तर हो।
उप संचालक चकबन्दी
अपर जिलाधिकारी (न्यायिक) / अलीगढ़।"
10. The argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners as well as the averment made in the writ
petition demonstrates that the impugned order has been
passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation abating the
proceeding of revision without affording proper opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners.
11. This Court in the case reported in 1987 RD 350, Ram
Khelawan vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others has laid down the principle for reconstruction of the
record of the proceeding in case the record is lost, burnt or
misplaced. Paragraph nos.6 to 8 of the judgement rendered
by this Court in Ram Khelawan (supra) , will be relevant for
perusal which are as under:
"6. The principle of reconstruction of
document whether it is lost, burnt or
misplaced not on account of fault of either
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
9
parties is clearly covered under the courts
inherent power under Section 151 Code of
Civil Procedure However, this power has to
be exercised with great care and
circumvention to see that in reconstruction of
file no party is getting favourable gains from
the position what it was prior to the
reconstructions. One of the principles which
is to be kept in mind is that the party should
be given fullest opportunity first to file such
certified copies which are in their possession
of those records which are now not available
to the court. In doing so the court need not
confine itself to the certified copies but even
copies which are not certified if either party
did not object and accept the said document,
it may be accepted as a part of the record of
the then existing document. No fixed principle
or criterion could be laid down to the court in
deciding as to in what manner the record is to
be reconstructed.
7. However it is very significant in the
reconstruction of the file, when a document
not being certified copy sought to be filed is
objected to at the stage . of reconstruction,
the principle which normally would have been
followed for its admissibility earlier should be
adhered to. Some times even statement
recorded in the judgment of the various
authorities, the certified copy of which is
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
10
available, will also be strong circumstance to
be kept in mind in accepting or rejecting any
document which is not a certified copy of the
then existing record if such document is
contrary to what is recorded therein. There
are also rules in the General Rules (Civil
Rules) and the circular issued by the High
Court from time to time to the courts below
for guidance about the reconstruction of the
record.
8. It is relevant here to refer to a case of
Division Bench of this High Court reported in
1983 AllCJ 49 (Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation v. Smt. Geeta Devi and
others). In this case strong reliance was
placed on the Full Bench decision of Madras
High Court reported in Markkarutti v. Veeran
Kutti : AIR 1923 Mad 647
[LQ/MadHC/1923/101] . In this case also
material evidence required to be brought on
the record were the statements of two
witnesses. Counsel for the parties there were
entitled to file the copies of the statements of
witnesses. On the fact of that case our Court
held that it is apparently clear to give another
opportunity to the parties to produce the
same before the Claims Tribunal. It was
further held, in case even after giving fresh
opportunity, the parties failed to do the same,
then the Tribunal may ask for reproduction of
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
11
the witnesses for making the statement and in
doing so the Tribunal shall afford opportunity
to cross examine each of those witnesses."
12. It is material to mention that proceeding of title revision
filed by predecessor of petitioner cannot be abated on the
ground that the records are not available. The proper
opportunity be afforded to the parties to supply document /
evidence which are available so that the record can be
reconstructed and matter can be decided by the
consolidation authorities on merit in respect to the title
proceeding.
13. It is also material to mention that this court in the case
reported in 2015 (128) RD 381 Lochan Versus D.D.C.,
Mathura & Others has held that litigation under the
U.P.C.H. Act is not a voluntarily litigation but is litigation,
forced upon a chak holder by law.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case as well as ratio of law laid down by this Court in Ram
Khelawan (supra) as well as Lochan (Supra) , the
impugned order dated 3.2.2025 passed by respondent
no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation / Additional District
Magistrate (Judicial), Aligarh abating the title proceeding
under U.P.C.H. Act is liable to be set aside and the same is
hereby set aside.
15. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted
back before respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Aligarh or any other authority exercising the
revisional jurisdiction to restore the revision on its original
number. The revisional Court shall reconstruct the record of
the proceeding in accordance with law after giving
opportunity to both parties to bring on record the
WRIB No. 4404 of 2025
12
documents / evidence which are available and decide the
revision in accordance with law after reconstruction of the
record of the proceeding, expeditiously preferably within a
period of three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
May 6, 2026
Rameez
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad