Raj Pratap Pandey and 2 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.

¶11

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

¶12

The dispute in the present case pertains to the succession of property situated at Village Rahimpur Dugawa, Pargana - Amsin, Tehsil - Sadar, District Ayodhya in Gata No. 16, 41, 45, 51, 52 and 30/161 and also with regard to property situated at Village Tahirpur situated at Khata No. 103.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid lands were recorded in the name of Ram Kripal Singh S/o Tulsiram and the petitioners being the successor in interest of Ram Kripal and are entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of the disputed property.

¶14

The private respondents on the other hand claim that the property is ancestral property which was initially recorded in the name of Ram Kishun who had two sons, namely, Suryabali and Tulsiram and the private respondents are legal heirs / successor in interest of Suryabali.

¶15

The objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer in proceedings U/S 9A(2) of Consolidation of Holding Act. The Consolidation Officer partly allowed the objections of both the sides and

¶16

WRIB No. 68 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

in some portion of the land directed to be recorded exclusively in the name of petitioners while in certain lands he permitted co-tenancy of the private respondents and in these circumstances two appeals came to be filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

¶19

The Settlement Officer Consolidation after examining the record and after hearing both the parties as well as written submissions filed by both the parties was of the view that firstly no evidence was adduced by the private respondents indicating that the land ever came to be recorded in the name of Ram Kishun, secondly he returned a finding that during the first and the second consolidation proceedings the lands came to be recorded in individual names of all the contesting parties and lastly he was of the view that bar of Section 11A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would apply in the present case inasmuch as once the consolidation operations are over and all the objections U/S 9 stands decided then fresh objections with regard to the same cannot be permitted to be filed at a subsequent consolidation proceedings.

¶20

The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.03.2025 came to be assailed by the private respondents before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Before the Dy. Director of Consolidation one of the grounds taken by the private respondents was that the appeal has been decided by the Settlement Officer without taking into account the land records pertaining to fasli 1301 where name of Ram Kripal is existing in the revenue records.

¶21

It was the case of private respondents that once it is established that the disputed land was recorded in the name of common ancestor that the nature of such land could not be changed subsequently and all the legal heirs of Ram Kishun would be entitled to their share in the property.

¶22

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Dy. Director of Consolidation was of the view that the appellate authority has ignored certain vital aspect of the matter and the evidence which was already available on record and it is for the said reasons he has remanded the mater back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for consideration afresh.

¶23

WRIB No. 68 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

The order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation was passed an order on 20.11.2025 and there is no dispute that subsequent to the said order the Settlement Officer Consolidation has taken cognizance of the judgment and is proceeding to hear and decide the matter in terms of the remand order dated 20.11.2025 and this Court has been informed that the next date fixed for final hearing is fixed on 13.02.2026.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that when the entire material was available then the same issue could have been decided at the stage of Dy. Director of Consolidation himself but fairly submits that with regard to the admissibility and existence of the revenue records pertaining to fasli 1301 are opposed by him and he may also be filed relevant evidence disputing the said revenue records and after arguing the matter at some length he submits that the remand proceedings may be directed to be decided in accordance with law with expedition.

¶27

Accordingly, in light of the above, firstly this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 20.11.2025 remanding the matter for decision afresh by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the remand proceedings the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall decided the matter with expedition considering the fact that the entire material is already existing on record but liberty is granted to both the parties to file any other document they wish to file within next two weeks and the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall conclude the proceedings within two months thereafter in accordance with law.

¶28

The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

¶29

Needless to say, as the matter stands remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation, the parties shall maintain status quo and shall not further alienate the land till appropriate orders are passed by the appellate authority

¶30

It is made clear that the protection granted by this Court shall seize to exist on passing of the appropriate orders by the appellate authority.

¶31

WRIB No. 68 of 2026

¶32

4

¶33

With the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

February 5, 2026

Ravi/

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

Raj Pratap Pandey and 2 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Pratap Pandey and 2 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and 6 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

Similar cases

Sundar @ Sundar Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Others

Ruchi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Ganesh Das vs Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others

Uday Pratap and Another vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Sawayajpur, Hardoi

Vijay Pal vs Sanjay Kumar and Another

Ram Singh vs Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others