Aakanksha Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Aakanksha Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: impugned order dated 28.8.2025 quashed; matter remanded to respondent no. 2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, to condone the delay in filing the restoration application, consider the compromise between the petitioner and respondents no. 3 and 4, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.8.2025 rejecting the petitioner's restoration application as time-barred is liable to be quashed, there being a settlement/compromise between the petitioner and respondents no. 3 and 4. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 28.8.2025 rejecting the restoration application is quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, with a direction to condone the delay in filing the restoration application, consider the compromise submitted by the petitioner and respondents no. 3 and 4, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

No circumstance was pointed out by the respondents' counsel precluding the compromise from being acted upon, except that the restoration application was time-barred.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) disposed of a WRIT - B petition (No. 4746 of 2025) challenging the order dated 6.3.2025 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation approving a reference under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the subsequent order dated 28.8.2025 rejecting the petitioner's restoration application as time-barred, despite a compromise between the petitioner and respondents no. 3 and 4 arising from an error in chak construction following the sale of 1/2 of the share of respondent no. 3 (Chunbad). Holding that no circumstance precluded acting on the compromise except the time-bar, the Court quashed the order dated 28.8.2025 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, with a direction to condone the delay in filing the restoration application, consider the compromise, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - B No. - 4746 of 2025

Aakanksha Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Awadhesh Chandra Mi	Kumar shra ..	Yadav, ...Respo	Vimal ndent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Achal Sing Yadav, Sha	h, C.S.C., mbhu Nath	Rahul Pandey	Kumar

Court No. - 39

Sl. No. 231

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shiv Sagar holding brief of Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 34 and 4, Shri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Shri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the order dated 6.3.2025 whereby the reference under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been approved by the Dy. Director of Consolidation-respondent no. 2 and subsequently on a restoration application filed by the petitioner herein, the same was also rejected by the order dated 28.8.2025 despite there being a settlement/compromise between the parties.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents no. 3 and 4 are the owners of an agriculture property/chak in which the respondent no. 3 and 4 were having their shares. The said respondent no. 3-Chunbad has sold some portion of his share i.e. 1/2 of the said property. Thereafter the mutation applications were filed and the directions were issued to prepare the chak accordingly on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that some error

WRIB No. 4746 of 2025

2

has occurred while constructing the chaks of the petitioner as well as the respondents no. 2 and 3. Thereupon the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 and 4 have entered into a compromise and a restoration application was filed, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.8.2025 on the ground that the same being time barred. Since there was no dispute between the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 and 4 therefore the respondent no. 2 ought to have entertained the restoration application and was required to pass the order in accordance with the compromise.

Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any such circumstances whereby the said compromise cannot be acted upon except the restoration application filed by the petitioner was time barred.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.8.2025 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot with a direction to condone the delay in filing the restoration application and consider the compromise submitted by the petitioner as well as the respondents no. 3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

March 20, 2026

o.k.

Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad