Surendra and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - B No. - 1105 of 2026

Surendra And Another

	Versus .....	Petitioner(s)
State Of Up And 5 Others	.....Re	spondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ramakant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.	Bhupendra

¶5

Court No. - 55

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Amit Gupta, holding brief of Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

¶8

The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, dated 23.12.1997, 07.12.2023 and 29.10.2025, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶9

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of their possession over plot nos.545/2, they filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming rights under Section 122-B(4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The aforesaid objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.12.1997. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was allowed by the order dated 12.07.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after 24 years the respondent no.6 filed a restoration application for setting aside the order dated 12.07.1999, which was allowed by the order dated 07.12.2023, passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, setting aside the aforesaid order and restoring the appeal to its original number.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the application for restoration having been filed after 24 years was highly time barred and

¶11

WRIB No. 1105 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

could not have been allowed at the instance of respondent no.6, who admittedly is claiming right on the basis of sale deed executed by Haridwar and another, who also claimed possession over the said land without any document of title. Once the Settlement Officer Consolidation came to the conclusion that plot no.545/2 was the gaon sabha land, the recall application on behalf of respondent no.6 was not maintainable. The respondent no.2 has erred in rejecting the revision only on the ground that the appeal is still to be decided on merits, therefore, no interference is required with the order dated 07.12.2023.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 has contended that he is transferee of Haridwar and another whose rights were recognized over plot no.545/2 area 0.089 hectares and only after obtaining permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the sale deed dated 25.03.2023 was executed. Till date, no notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been published in the village where land in dispute is situated. He further submits that there is no other land in plot no.545/2 over which any right could have been granted to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 12.07.1999 was liable to be set aside, having been passed behind back of persons already in possession over the said plot and recorded in the revenue records at the start of consolidation proceedings.

¶15

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

Perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 07.12.2023 shows that the said order has been passed on the ground that the order dated 12.07.1999 appears to be suspicious, however, he has not rejected the claim of petitioner and has only restored the appeal to its original number for being decided afresh, therefore, the petitioners have opportunity to establish their case before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Moreover, the perusal of order dated 12.07.1999 shows that no finding had been recorded regarding period of possession of the petitioners over the plot in question before allowing their claim under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950. In such view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated

¶17

WRIB No. 1105 of 2026

¶18

3

¶19

07.12.2023. The respondent no.2 was justified in dismissing the revision as the matter is still to be decided on merits by the appellate authority.

¶20

The objection of respondent no.6 that consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide rights of petitioners under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950, is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Satpal vs. Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in 2015 (129) RD 740. Relevant paragraph no.12 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

¶21

"12. So far as the finding recorded by respondents- 1 and 2 that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to confer right under Section 122 B (4 F) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 is concerned, it is incorrect. A perusal of Section shows that section originally added gives a presumption that the person in occupation who falls in the category as enumerated shall be deemed to be admitted as sirdar. Section is further amended by UP Act No. 11 of 2002 and it has been further clarified that it shall not be necessary for such occupant to institute a suit for declaration of his right as bhumidhar with transferable right in that land. Thus the right is conferred by the statute and not by any authority. If the right is proved then it is well within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to record the name of any person. In this case right of the petitioner is not proved. Inasmuch as no documentary evidence has been filed to prove his possession while the oral evidence was contradictory of the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. Thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner."

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.3, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghazipur, to decide the appeal, pending before him, by passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned parties, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

May 5, 2026

Ashok Kr.

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra and Another v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra and Another v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Sharma vs Board of Revenue and 6 Others

Shankar Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Naman Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Istekar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kunwar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others