Parashu Ram and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Parashu Ram and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ Court should interfere with the Dy. Director of Consolidation's order dated 26.06.2025 rejecting the petitioners' claim for correction of the revenue record of the disputed Gata No. 38 (recorded as Khalihan) to show it as abadi. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioners could not demonstrate that any patta or lease was executed in their favour by the gaon sabha; accordingly, their occupation of Gata No. 38, which is recorded as Khalihan, is without any force of law.

Ratio / Principle

No provision or any law was shown by the petitioners which may enable the Court to pass an order in their favour or justify their possession over the disputed land.

Key takeaways

The Court accepted the preliminary objection that the reference made in 2023, after issuance of the notification under Section 52 on 31.03.2005 and much after conclusion of the consolidation proceedings, was without jurisdiction; counsel for petitioners could not dispute the said facts.ratio¶¶11
For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court found no ground for interference, holding the writ petition devoid of merits, and dismissed it.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-B No. 775 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), order date 20.8.2025. Petitioners claimed possession of Gata No. 38, area 0.125 hectare (new Gata No. 74), Village Kusaur, District Bahraich, submitted that during consolidation the land was recorded as abadi in C.H. Form-2-A but as Khalihan at the Form-41 stage, and had sought correction of the revenue records; the Dy. Director of Consolidation rejected their contention by revisional order dated 26.06.2025. The Court held that the petitioners could not demonstrate any patta or lease from the gaon sabha, that their occupation of the gata recorded as Khalihan was without any force of law, and that no provision or law was shown justifying their possession. It further accepted, undisputed by petitioners' counsel, the preliminary objection that the reference made in 2023 was without jurisdiction, being after the notification under Section 52 dated 31.03.2005 and much after conclusion of consolidation proceedings. Writ petition dismissed.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48627

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 775 of 2025

Petitioner :- Parashu Ram And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Heard Sri Naveen Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent No. 1 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of land situated at Gata No. 38 area 0.125 hectare(new Gata No. 74) situated at Village - Kusaur, Prgana, Tehsil & District - Bahraich.

It has been submitted that during the consolidation proceedings in C.H. Form-2-A it was recorded as an abadi land but subsequently at the stage of preparation of Form - 41, the same was recorded as Khalihan and over the said land petitioners have constructed a house for the last 40 years. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners had moved an application for referring the dispute for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records from deleting the description of land as Khalihan and recording it as an abadi.

Considering the said reference, in exercise of revisional powers the Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 26.06.2025 has rejected the contention of the petitioners. It has been stated that in the revenue records previously also the disputed land was registered as Khalihan and on the culmination of the consolidation proceedings the land was recorded as Khalihan.

The petitioner could not demonstrate as to whether any patta or lease was executed in their favour by the gaon sabha and accordingly on the face of it the occupation om the gata No. 38 which is recorded as a Khalihan is without any force of law. No provision or any law could be shown by the petitioners which may enable this Court to pass an order in their favour or which could justify their possession over the disputed land.

Apart from the above, learned Standing Counsel has also raised a preliminary objection that the reference was made after issuance of the notification under Section 52 on 31.03.2005 and therefore in the aforesaid circumstances even the reference was without jurisdiction, while the reference in the present case has been made in the present case in 2023 much after conclusion of the consolidation proceedings. Counsel for petitioners could not dispute the said facts

It is for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the present case which is devoid of merits and is accordingly present writ petition is dismissed .

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Ravi/

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench