Sheo Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3751 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sheo Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to dispute that petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 passed under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He, however, refers para 21 of writ petition which is reproduced as under: "21. That there being no other alternative efficacious remedy except to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is filing the present writ petition on the following amongst grounds:"

¶2Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has approached this Court directly for efficacious remedy since Consolidation Officer has rejected objections filed by petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of adverse possession and he also refers para 18 of writ petition in this regard, which is reproduced hereinafter: "18. That since the finding returned by the Court below is undisputed and the objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act 1953 has been rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction, it is humbly submitted that though there is a provision of Appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 but the same may not be an efficacious remedy and accordingly present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being filed."

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner further refers following part of impugned order as under: " इस ्ቚककार वकाद प्ቔ कके ककससी तथ्य कका ककोई खण्डन ्ቚकतवकादसी ससंख्यका १ दकारका नहसी ककयका हहै वकादसी दकारका अकभिकथनोሪ कको सकाቌኚयोሪ दकारका सस्ቍ ककयका गयका हहै कब्जके कके सम्बन्ध मम ससकवल ककी कडककी कदनकासंक 06.01.83 कका समकादर करतके हहयके कब्जका्ቚ कतवकादसी दकारका स्वसीककत हकोनके कके ककारण तथका ममौकके पर

0.514 हके० आबकादसी सम्पकाररवरक सकाቌኚय कब्जका हकोनके कके ककारण, 50 वररसं कका ्ቚकतककल अध्यकासन सस्ቍ हकोनके सके धकारका 210 यक०पसी०जकेड०ए०एल०आर० एक्ट व अननुच्छकेद 65 पररससीमका असधकनयम कके अन्तगरत असधककार पकणरतयका पररपक्व हको चनुकके हहै। परन्तनु इस न्यकायकालय कको ्ቚकतककल अध्यकासन कके आधकार पर स्वत्व ्ቚदकान करनके कका कके्ቔकासधककार नहसी हहै ्ቚकतवकादसी ससंख्यका 01 पयकार्቎ तकामसील कके बकाद भिसी कभिसी इस न्यकायकालय मके हकासजर नहसी आयका वह जसीकवत हहै यका मकतक हहै यकद मकतक हहै तको उसनके कमौन-2 कवसधक वकाररस हहै यह भिसी सस्ቍ नहसी हहै सजस ककारण भिकम गकामसभिका मके कनकहत ककयके जकानके यकोग्य हहै तद्ननुसकार दकावका वकादसी कनस्तकाररत ककयका जकातका हहै।"

¶4The assumption of learned counsel for petitioner that grievance of petitioner could not be decided efficaciously by Appellate Authority / Revisional Authority has no legal basis since while recording aforesaid finding Consolidation Officer has touched the issue of jurisdiction, therefore, it could be a ground to agitate before Appellate Authority/ Revisional Authority and said authority has wide power to consider, whether or not in given circumstances, the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to decide the issue of adverse possession. Therefore, there is no circumstance exist to approach this Court directly.

¶5In view of above, without interfering with impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to file appeal or revision against impugned order, as the case may be. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad