Dismissed

Ram Ashish and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025WRIB/1048/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging consolidation orders recording land as 'Talab' (pond). Court dismissed petition, holding that remand would serve no purpose as petitioners failed to establish any legal title to the land, and prejudice from lack of hearing was not shown.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Ashish and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 1048 of 2025

¶3

Ram Ashish And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Others	Unnao And	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Anoop Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that present dispute pertains to Khata No. 146, Gata No. 302, area 0.480 hectares and Gata No. 369, area 0.101 hectares, situated at Village - Charihara, Pargana - Aseevan Rasoolabad, Tehsil - Hasanganj, District - Unnao.

¶11

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Devi (Grand father of petitioner nos. 1 to 3) and after his death, name of Bhagga (father of petitioner nos. 1 to 3) was recorded in the revenue records as per khataunies of Fasli years 1356, 1359, 1375-1377 and 1393-1398.

¶12

It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that consolidation operations commenced in the said village and the survey report which was submitted with regard to disputed land, and was duly considered by the Consolidation Officer, it was found that the said land is recorded as "Talab" and accordingly, previous enteries in respect to disputed land were cancelled, and "Talab" was entered in the revenue records by order dated 03.06.2003. It is submitted that Bhagga S/o Devi died in 1992 at that time petitioners were minor under the guardianship of their mother and they did not have the knowledge of order dated 03.06.2003 and same was passed without giving adequate opportunity of

¶13

WRIB No. 1048 of 2025

¶14

¶15

hearing to the parties. An application for recall of order dated 03.06.2003 was filed by the mother of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 on 25.05.2004 and the said application came to be decided on 26.12.2018 by the Consolidation Officer.

¶16

With regard to service of notice, on perusal of record it seems that Consolidation Officer has recorded that notices were issued to Bhagga and as per record notices were duly pasted and from the record it cannot be known as to when Bhagga died. It has further been submitted that the Consolidation Officer in the order dated 26.12.2018 has recorded the fact that Patta for five years was granted in favour of Bhagga with regard to fishery rights on the said Pond and period of five years has expired and subsequently, as per revenue records Gata Nos. 302 and 369 are recorded as Talab and subsequently orders were passed for correcting the error, inasmuch as after expiry of Patta wrongly the name of Bhagga continued in the revenue records and after holding that said land was not covered under Section 6(1) and also referring to Section 133 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and considering that no individual can claim ownership or title over such land and therefore, rejected the application for recall.

¶17

Aggrieved by order dated 26.12.2018, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was rejected and similarly revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation also met same fate while passing orders dated 10.10.2019 and 29.08.2025, respectively.

¶18

In respect to the right or title to the disputed land, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that he does not have any material and his best case before this Court is that petitioners were denied opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer at the time of passing of order dated 03.06.2003. He further does not dispute the fact that the said land is recorded as Talab ad also that as per provisions of Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (now Section 72 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006), the land which is declared as Pond cannot be vested in any individual.

¶19

Considering the contention of the petitioners, only question to be considered by this Court is as to whether merely because petitioners were

¶20

WRIB No. 1048 of 2025

¶21

¶22

not given adequate opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer, can be a ground for setting aside all the impugned orders and remanding the matter back for consideration afresh.

¶23

It is noticed that all the revenue authorities have duly considered the case of the petitioners on merit and found that the disputed land is recorded as Talab (Pond), apart from which Bhagga, predecessor in interest of the petitioners was only given Patta for five years which has expired long before. Even if the matter is remanded, no legally sustainably claim has been made by the petitioners, on the basis of which their contention can be favourably considered by the revenue authorities.

¶24

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that remanding the matter back would be mere formality and would serve no purpose inasmuch as the petitioners have been unable to demonstrate their right or title over the disputed land. It is well settled that even if order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, in such circumstances interference can only be made when some prejudice can be shown by the parties.

¶25

In the present case, even if this Court agrees with the contention of the petitioners that order dated 03.06.2003 was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, still this Court do not find any error on merit as recorded by this Court that no legally sustainable claim has been set up by the petitioners with regard to ownership and title over the disputed land.

¶26

From the aforesaid this Court do not find any ground for interference in the present matter. Accordingly, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

(Alok Mathur,J.)

October 31, 2025

A. Verma

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Ashish and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Ashish and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Vindeshwari Prasad and Another Vs Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Sangam Lal and 2 Others Vs Addl. District Magistrate Judicial/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Amethi and 4 Others

Hari Prashad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Anil Kumar Yadav and Others Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Nilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others