Disposed¶21

Moti Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2025WRIB/1147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act; Section 12; Section 48; writ of certiorari; subsequent purchaser during pendency; right to contest consolidation proceeding; deletion of petitioner as party; recall of ex parte order; unregistered will dated 5.5.1997; sale deed dated 23.10.2000; mutation by Nayab Tehsildar; Consolidation Officer; D.D.C. revision; Lakhimpur Kheri; Gata No. 102; revisional order set aside; petitioners directed to participate.

What did the court decide?

With the consent of both parties the petition was disposed of finally; the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the revisional court was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to participate in the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. ¶21

Moti Lal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who purchased the land in question from the legal heirs of the original tenure holder Gurdeen by sale deed dated 23.10.2000 (after the Section 12 proceeding was initiated in 1999), is entitled to contest the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, i.e., whether his name could lawfully be deleted as a party by the impugned revisional order.

¶16

Court's answer

Since the proceeding was contested by the petitioner up to revision level and the petitioner's name was recorded in the revenue record on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.10.2000, the petitioner has the right to contest the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Hearing the petitioner during the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act will not in any way prejudice or affect the right of respondent No.2.

¶20

Key takeaways

The impugned order passed by the revisional court is absolutely erroneous.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ B No. 1147 of 2025, Moti Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.; decided December 3, 2025) - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Sections 12 and 48; right of a purchaser during pendency to contest a Section 12 proceeding. The petitioner purchased Gata No. 102 (0.93 ha) and Gata No. 543 Kha (0.0890 ha), Village Pipra Maroda, Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Lakhimpur Kheri, from the legal heirs of original tenure holder Gurdeen by sale deed dated 23.10.2000 and was mutated in the revenue record on 27.1.2001. Respondent No.2's 1999 application under Section 12 (relying on an unregistered will dated 5.5.1997 by Gurdeen in favour of respondent No.2 and one Ramasrey) was allowed on 30.1.2015 by the Consolidation Officer, but was recalled on 2.8.2016 on the application of the petitioner and Gurdeen's legal heirs; respondent No.2's revision was dismissed on 27.12.2019 with directions to complete the Section 12 proceeding. Respondent No.2's application to delete the petitioner as a party, rejected on 19.2.2025 and sustained by dismissal of the appeal on 17.7.2025, nevertheless succeeded in revision before the D.D.C. (Revision No. 512 of 2025 under Section 48) by order dated 11.11.2025, with remand to the C.O. Held: as the petitioner contested the proceeding up to revision level and his name stood recorded on the basis of the 2000 sale deed, he has the right to contest the Section 12 proceeding; hearing him would not prejudice respondent No.2; the revisional order was absolutely erroneous. Petition disposed of with the consent of both parties; order dated 11.11.2025 set aside; petitioners directed to participate in the Section 12 proceeding.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 1147 of 2025

Moti Lal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Deputy Director Of Consolid Kheri And Others	ation, Lakhimpur .	....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Satendra Nath Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Vipul Kumar Singh	Mishra, Yogesh

¶7

Court No. - 22

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Rajendra Prasad Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the state.

¶10

The instant petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.11.2025 in Revision No. 512 of 2025, computerize case no. 202554104300000512 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and command respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petition over the land in question being Gata no. 102/0.9300 hectare as well as gata no. 545kha/0.0890 hectare, Village Pipra Maroda, District Pargana Srinagar, Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶11

Facts giving rise to present case are that the petitioner had purchased a land as Gata No. 102, area 0.93 hectare and also another land in Gata No. 543 Kha, area 0.0890 hectare from the legal heirs of the original tenure holder, Gurdeen through sale deed dated 23.10.2000 and on the basis of sale deed, the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue record by Nayab Tehsildar by order dated 27.1.2001. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 also filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 1999 on the ground that Gurdeen had executed an unregistered will on 5.5.1997 in favour of respondent No.2 and one Ramasrey. The said application was finally

¶12

WRIB No. 1147 of 2025

¶13

¶14

allowed on 30.1.2015 by the Consolidation Officer, directing to record the name of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioners as well as legal heirs of Gurdeen moved a recall application on 26.8.2015 to recall the order dated 30.1.2015 on the ground that the same was an ex parte order and the fact of legal heirs was concealed by respondent No.2. The said recall application was allowed on 2.8.2016 against which respondent No.2 filed a revision which was dismissed on 27.12.2019 and the court also directed to complete the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. During pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, an application was filed by respondent No.2 to delete the name of the petitioner as a party. The said application was rejected by order dated 19.2.2025 against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed on 17.7.2025 and challenging the aforesaid order, the respondent No.2 filed a revision before the D.D.C. which was allowed by order dated 11.11.2025 and the matter was also remanded to the C.O. to pass appropriate order after hearing other parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner as well as legal heirs of the original tenure holder Gurdeen had filed a recall application which was allowed and the order dated 30.1.2015 passed under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act was recalled, therefore, they are the necessary party as the present petitioner after purchasing the land from the legal heirs of Gurdeen stepped into the shoes of the legal heirs of Gurdeen. Therefore, they have right to contest the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, initiated on the application of respondent No.2. Therefore, the revenue court erroneously directed to delete the name of the petitioner.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act was initiated on the basis of the unregistered will dated 5.5.1997 executed by the original tenure holder Gurdeen before his death. It is further submitted that the proceeding itself was initiated in the year 1999 and the land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2000, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to contest the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act as he is subsequent purchaser and he purchased the land during pendency of the proceeding.

¶17

WRIB No. 1147 of 2025

¶18

¶19

Learned A.G.A. also adopted the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the final order dated 30.1.2015 was passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the application of the respondent No.2, but the same was recalled on the application filed by the petitioner as well as legal heirs of Gurdeen who were the vendors of the petitioner. As the proceeding was contested by the petitioner up to revision level and the petitioner's name was also recorded in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed dated 23.10.2000, therefore, the petitioner has right to contest the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the revisional court is absolutely erroneous and hearing the petitioner during the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, in such circumstances, will not in any way pre judice or affect the right of respondent No.2.

¶21

Accordingly, with the consent of both the parties, present petition is disposed of finally. Order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the revisional court is hereby set aside. Petitioners are directed to participate in the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

¶22

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶23

December 3, 2025

¶24

Vandana

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 11.11.2025 in Revision No. 512 of 2025 (computerised case no. 202554104300000512) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, by which the revisional court (D.D.C.) allowed respondent No.2's revision and remanded the matter to the C.O. to pass appropriate order after hearing other parties.¶10
Revisional court (D.D.C. / Deputy Director of Consolidation) · 11.11.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner purchased Gata No. 102 (area 0.93 hectare) and Gata No. 543 Kha (area 0.0890 hectare) from the legal heirs of original tenure holder Gurdeen by sale deed dated 23.10.2000.¶11
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the sale deed, the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue record by the Nayab Tehsildar by order dated 27.1.2001.¶11
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in 1999, on the ground that Gurdeen had executed an unregistered will dated 5.5.1997 in favour of respondent No.2 and one Ramasrey.¶11
Prior proceeding
The Section 12 application was allowed on 30.1.2015 by the Consolidation Officer, directing that the name of respondent No.2 be recorded.¶14
Prior proceeding
The petitioners and the legal heirs of Gurdeen moved a recall application on 26.8.2015 against the order dated 30.1.2015, on the ground that it was an ex parte order and the fact of legal heirs was concealed by respondent No.2.¶14
Prior proceeding
The recall application was allowed on 2.8.2016.¶14
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2's revision against the recall order was dismissed on 27.12.2019, and the court directed completion of the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act.¶14
Prior proceeding
During pendency, respondent No.2 applied to delete the petitioner's name as a party; the application was rejected by order dated 19.2.2025.¶14
Prior proceeding
The appeal against the rejection order was dismissed on 17.7.2025.¶14
Prior proceeding
Challenging that order, respondent No.2 filed a revision before the D.D.C., which was allowed by order dated 11.11.2025 with remand to the C.O. to pass appropriate order after hearing other parties (the impugned order).¶14

Moti Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Others vs Sub. District Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda and Others

Parshuram and Another vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur and Others

Sohan Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others

Vijay Kumar Verma vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Ayodhya and Others

Vimla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and Others

Moti Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others