Lakshmi Devi vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that certain parties have inadvertently been left out, he seeks permission to implead the same, the same is permitted. Shri Ravi Shankar Tiwari shall carry out the necessary amendment during the course of the day and shall file an amended memo of parties by 28th October, 2025.

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in so far as disputed property is concerned, the same was originally recorded in the names of Sant Ram and Ram Dulare both sons of Pyare. After taking the necessary permission the said land was sold in favour of the petitioner. Later, Sant Ram and Ram Dulare also executed a subsequent sale deed in favour of Shri Prakash. This gave rise to disputes which came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 16.03.2007. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who by means of order dated 31.03.2023 allowed the appeal of the petitioner holding that the property purchased by the petitioner was bonafide and also directed the name of the petitioner to be recorded.

¶12

WRIB No. 1017 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as aforesaid the revision came to be preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow registered as Revision No.433 of 2023 wherein Ram Dulare, Sant Ram, Sunny Sharma and Arti Sharma were revisionists. The respondents were Smt. Laxmi Devi i.e. the petitioner and Smt. Bina Gupta amongst others. The revision was contested on merits and the same came to be dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 30.05.2024. A copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.5.

¶15

It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the dismissal of the revision on 30.05.2024 this order was never assailed before any superior forum and thus the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.03.2023 had attained finality.

¶16

In the aforesaid backdrop the private respondent no.3 moved an application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation seeking recall of the order dated 31.03.2023 claiming certain rights in the property.

¶17

It is the contention of the petitioner that once the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.03.2023 had been affirmed by the superior authority on 30.05.2024. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation would not have any jurisdiction to entertain or to consider the said application of the private respondent no.3. It is thus urged that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is patently erroneous and without jurisdiction.

¶18

The matter requires consideration.

¶19

Let notice be issued to the respondents no.3 to 12. Steps to be taken by 28th of October, 2025.

¶20

It will be open for the private respondents to file their counteraffidavit within three weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner, who may if so choose, may file his response within ten days thereafter.

¶21

List in the 1st week of December, 2025.

¶22

WRIB No. 1017 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Until further order, the proceedings before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in pursuance of the recall application preferred by the private respondent no.3 shall remain stayed.

¶25

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶26

October 17, 2025 ank

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lakshmi Devi v. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Devi v. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Singh and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Ram Chandra and 3 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. General Officer Commanding in Chief Appellate Authority Lko. and Another

Devesh Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Smt. Sadbhavna vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. and 4 Others

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi and Others vs Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others