Dismissed¶23

Smt. Rajkumari and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2026WRIB/1254/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consolidation succession dispute, plot No.1098 (0.599 ha), Village Belsar, District Gonda: condonation of seven-month delay (cost Rs.500/-) in appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation upheld; SOC order dated 22.12.2011 setting aside CO order dated 19.8.2010 (0.126 ha separated as non-agricultural) and DDC revisional order dated 29.8.2025 left undisturbed; chak road protection; Writ-B dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Although the delay-condonation ground was not raised in the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the petitioners' oral argument and found that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had rightly condoned the seven-month delay while imposing cost of Rs.500/- in the interest of justice. ¶21

Smt. Rajkumari and 4 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Settlement Officer of Consolidation erred in condoning the delay of nearly seven months in filing the appeal by the private respondents, and whether the consequential orders dated 22.12.2011 and 29.8.2025 call for interference.

¶16

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Court does not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities condoning the delay.

¶22

Key takeaways

The seven-month delay was not of such long duration as to indicate that the appeal was filed deliberately with mala fide intentions.ratio¶22
No interference is required in the impugned orders; the writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 5 — WRIT - B No. 1254 of 2025; Alok Mathur, J.; decided January 8, 2026. Petitioners (Smt. Rajkumari and 4 others) challenged the revisional order dated 29.8.2025 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and the order dated 22.12.2011 of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda. Sole ground: the Settlement Officer of Consolidation wrongly condoned a delay of nearly seven months in the appeal filed by opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 against the Consolidation Officer's, Belsar order dated 19.8.2010 (under which 0.126 hectare of plot No. 1098, area 0.599 hectare, recorded in the name of Ram Sunder, had been separated from the consolidation scheme as non-agricultural land); the Settlement Officer allowed the appeal on a cost of Rs.500/-, set aside the Consolidation Officer's order and protected the existing chak road initially granted in favour of the petitioners. The condonation ground had not been raised in the revision but was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on oral argument. Held: the seven-month delay, condoned on a cost of Rs.500/-, involved no infirmity and did not indicate mala fide filing; no interference required; writ petition dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 1254 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Rajkumari And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivek Pandey, Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Tushar Gupta holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta on behalf of opposite party No.6.

¶10

In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶11

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to the succession of property of plot No.1098 area 0.599 hectare which was originally recorded in the name of Ram Sunder son of Kali Prasad, resident of Village Belsar, Pargana Diksir, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda. It has been submitted that on the death of Ram Sunder his sons continued to remain in possession of the said land and conducted agricultural activities but submit that during consolidation proceedings the said land was erroneously classified as non - agricultural land and higher land revenue was fixed. It is in this regard that objections were filed and even spot inspection was conducted and the said objections were partly allowed where 0.126 hectare land was directed to be separated from the consolidation scheme treating it as a non- agricultural land. The aforesaid order was passed on 19.8.2010 by the Consolidation Officer, Belsar, Gonda.

¶12

WRIB No. 1254 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Against the order dated 19.8.2010 opposite party No.s 4 and 5 had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda after a delay of nearly seven months. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation condoned the delay after imposing a cost of Rs.500/- and allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.8.2010 and proceeded to protect the existing chak road which was initially granted in favour of the petitioners by the order of Consolidation Officer.

¶15

The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation had preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 29.8.2025 and accordingly in the present petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders dated 29.8.2025 and 22.12.2011.

¶16

The only ground urged by the petitioners is that the delay was wrongly condoned by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation despite the fact that the appeal was filed belatedly and accordingly only on this ground he has wrongly allowed the appeal preferred by private respondents and consequently the Deputy Director of Consolidation also erroneously rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, have opposed the petition stating that the delay before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was of nearly seven months and sufficient explanation was given by the appellant which was allowed by imposing cost of Rs.500/-. He has further submitted that a perusal of the revision preferred by the petitioners would indicate that this ground was never raised by them before the revisional authority but on the arguments of the petitioner this aspect has been considered and it has been found that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly allowed the application for condonation of the delay by imposing a cost of Rs.500/-.

¶18

WRIB No. 1254 of 2025

¶19

¶20

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶21

The only ground raised by the petitioners is with regard to infirmity in condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the private respondents. We find that the delay is of seven months and the same has been condoned while imposing cost of Rs.500/- and even though the petitioners have not taken the said ground in the revision but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the oral argument of the petitioner and found that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly condoned the delay while imposing cost of Rs.500/- in the interest of justice.

¶22

This Court does not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities condoning the delay. Apart from the above, we find that the delay was not of such long duration from which it can be said that the parties have deliberately filed the appeal with malafide intentions.

¶23

Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned orders. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶25

January 8, 2026 RKM.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rajkumari and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajkumari and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda 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

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Others vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Balram and others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Revenue and others

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

Veerendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Mohd. Hashim and Anr. Vs D.D.C. Pratapgarh and 2 Ors.

Kunwar Chandra Pratap Singh vs Board of Revenue, Lko. and Others