Allahabad High Court
RAKESH AND 2 OTHERSversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as the petitioners were negligent in prosecuting the proceedings and no apparent error exists to warrant interference.
Summary
The petitioners sought a review of the High Court's order dismissing their writ petition concerning a title dispute over land claimed on the basis of a registered sale deed. They alleged that the consolidation officer and subsequent appellate authorities had acted arbitrarily, failed to give them a hearing, and dismissed their restoration applications despite negligence caused by imprisonment and other unavoidable circumstances. The Court examined whether the review petition was maintainable, whether the petitioners' alleged negligence barred relief, and whether the title dispute could be reopened under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. It held that the petitioners were negligent in prosecuting the appeal and revision, that the statutory limitation provisions applied, and that no error apparent on the record justified a review. Consequently, the review petition was rejected and the original dismissal upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the review petition is maintainable in the absence of an apparent error on the record
- Whether the petitioner's alleged negligence and failure to prosecute the appeal bars any relief
- Whether the title dispute can be reopened despite earlier adjudication by the consolidation officer
- Applicability of the limitation provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Indian Limitation Act to the title proceedings
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act — s. 5
- Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 19(1), 48, 5, 53-B, 9(A)
Subjects
- review
- negligence
- limitation
- title dispute
- consolidation of holdings
- ex parte dismissal
- restoration application
- adverse possession
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 117 of 2026
Rakesh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 10 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioners/applicants and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
2. The instant review application has been filed against the final
judgment passed by this Court on 27.05.2026 in Writ B No.13482 of
1981 on the following grounds as set up in the review application:-
"1. Because, petitioner claiming his right on the basis
of registered sale deed and respondents claiming their
rights on the disputed property on the basis of adverse
possession of the disputed land, thereafter, the
petitioner moved an application under section 9(A) of
U.P.C.H. Act before the consolidation officer, The
consolidation officer considering the facts and
evidence produced by concerned party, some Gata of
the disputed land is given to the petitioner and some
Gata of the disputed land was given to the contesting
respondent on the basis of possession by order dated
27.01.1971.
2. Because, being aggrieved by part of the order dated
27.01.1971, the petitioner had preferred an appeal
before SOC Azamgarh, that the unavoidable
circumstances not control in hand of the petitioner, the
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
2
appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, that
during pendency of the appeal, the respondents falsely
implicated of Bikrma/Vikram Singh in Criminal Case
and Bikrma/Vikram Singh send in jail in said criminal
case lodged by the respondent party namely
Raghunath Singh. Therefore, unavoidable
circumstances not control in petitioner and the appeal
of the petitioner is dismissed ex-parte manner.
3. Because, the specific averment in this regard taken
and pleaded before the revisional authority in memo of
revision but without considering the specific pieading
in this regard the revision filed by the ancestral of the
petitioner is rejected only one line of order. "बार-बार पुकार
कराने पर भी प्रार्थी उपस्थित नहीं है। विपक्षी उपस्थित है।03.30 बज गया है
प्रार्थना पत्र निरस्त"।It is crystal clear claim/title of the
petitioner has not adjudicated on merit.
4. Because, ancestral of the petitioner was purchased
the Bhumidhari Land of Girdhari Pandey vide
registered sale deed dated 19.12.1974.
5. Because, on the basis of registered sale deed some
Gata mutated in Revenue Record in the name of
ancestral of the petitioner and some Gata is not
mutated in the Revenue Record in the ancestral of the
petitioner filed an objection under section 9(A) of
U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act vide case no. 733 before this
Consolidation Officer, V, Azamgarh, the aforesaid case
was decided on 27.01.1971 in favour of ancestral of the
petitioner and allowed the objection of the ancestral of
the petitioner and directed to mutate the name of
ancestral of the petitioner in Gata No. 526, 531, 542,
547, 560 on the basis of registered sale deed dated
01.12.1974.
6. Because, being aggrieved of some portion of the
judgement and order dated 27.01.1971 ancestral of the
petitioner namely Bikrma/Vikram Singh preferred an
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
3
appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation,
Azamgarh vide appeal no. 1910/48, Under Section 19(1)
of C.S. Act inre Bikrma/Vikram Singh Vs Raghuraj in
aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 11.11.1976 in ex-
parte manner, thereafter the restoration application
was moved on 08.02.1977 for recalling the order dated
11.11.1976.
7. Because, the Settlement Officer Consolidation,
Azamgarh rejected the restoration application of the
ancestral of the petitioner dated 08.02.1977 vide order
dated 10.11.1977.
8. Because, being aggrieved by the order dated
10.11.1977 the ancestral of the petitioner has preferred
a revision under section 48 of C.H. Act on 23.11.1977.
9. Because, on 30.01.1980, the revision of the ancestral
of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of
the petitioner of the revisionist is ex-parte.
10. Because, being aggrieved from the order dated
30.011980, the ancestral of the petitioner has preferred
a restoration application along with affidavit on
01.12.1980.
11. Because, the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh without considering averments made in the
restoration application and without calling the reply of
the other side dismissed the restoration application
dated 01.02.1980 in arbitrary manner without
considering the averments made in restoration
application.
12. Because, the genuine title claim has not been
decided by the appellate authority as well as revisional
authority, both the courts concerned dismissed the
restoration application of the petitioner in arbitrary
manner without framing the issues is necessary part of
the title matter.
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
4
13. Because, both the court concerned directed to
consider the averments made in application and
explaining the sufficient cause in restoration
application but both the court concerned without
considering the submission and averments made in
restoration application rejection the restoration
application of the petitioner in hurry manner.
14. Because, the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Court
remand the case then further directed re-examination
and also cross examination of the complainant and
also give the full opportunity of hearing to the both
parties, during the reexamination the competent
authority has not recorded the statement of the
Petitioners and also not given the full opportunity of
hearing, the all matter and facts available on record.
15. Because, the titled dispute has been decided on
the basis of evidence and pleading exchanged by the
parties concerned that in the present case the claim of
the parties has not been decided on merit and the title
case of the petitioner has been decided in ex-parte
manner rejecting his restoration application on the
ground of delay filing in the restoration application.
16. Because, the petitioner filed a stay application in
said writ petition on 07.03.2014 but no order passed in
stay
application.
17. Because, the title dispute cannot be decided in
hurry manner, the petitioner is claiming his rights on
the basis of registered sale deed executed by Girdhari
Pandey on 19.12.1971 in the favour of the ancestral of
the petition. The aforesaid sale deed never has been
challenged in any competent court of law. The said
land is settled in favour of the petition on the basis of
registered sale deed.
18. Because, the rights of the petitioner have not been
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
5
decided on merit but rejected the restoration
application on the ground of negligence done by the
petitioner in-beginning.
19. Because, the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by this
Hon'ble Court on the basis of negligence on the part of
petitioner in-beginning in said proceeding is incorrect
and against the record submitted by the petitioner
alongwith this review petition. It is submitted before
this Hon'ble Court; the petitioner has not been made a
delay for filing the appeal and revision and revision
before the court concerned.
20. Because, the petitioner preferred a statutory
revision before D.D.C. Azamgarh within stipulated
period prescribed under U.P. Consolidation and
Holding Act, it is submitted before this Hon'ble Court,
the restoration applicant filed by the petitioner before
D.D.C., on next date of rejecting of the revision of the
petitioner.
21. Because, the petitioner filed a restoration
application in revision mentioning therein that the
petitioner was ill due to this reason he was not
attended the court but the court concerned not
considered this plea of the petitioner, rejected the
restoration application without applying his judicial
mind.
22. Because, no deliberated intention of the petitioner
to linger the case before the court concerned as well as
this Hon'ble Court. In this regard mentioned in the
order dated 27.05.2026 is absolutely incorrect and
against the face of record
23. Because, on 29.01.1995, petitioner was also filed an
expedite application before this Hon'ble Court with
prayer to expedite the case of the petitioner and
remanded the matter back before D.D.C. for deciding
the case on its own merit but due to paucity of time the
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
6
case of the petitioner has not been decided on that
time but passing the impugned judgement and order
dated 27.05.2026, this Hon'ble Court on sole basis
rejecting the petition of the petitioner on the ground of
negligence in part of the petitioner. The petitioner was
trying to best effort for deciding the case on merit but
unavoidable circumstances the case of petitioner has
not been decided.
24. Because, during the pendency of the appeal before
S.O.C. Azamgarh, the ancestral of the petitioner
Bikrma/Vikram Singh was send in jail in S.T. No. 33 of
1972, Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Police Station
Ahraula, District Azamgarh and convicted by learned
Session Court for life imprisonment vide order dated
26.07.1972 due to this reason the ancestral of the
petitioner was not appeared in appeal pending before
S.O.C., Azamgarh, therefore, the appeal was rejected
on the ground of not appearance."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants pressed all the 24
grounds taken in the review application one-by-one and submitted
that title proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
should be decided on merit rather on technical ground. He further
submitted that reason was assigned for restoring the title proceeding
on its original number to adjudicate the controversy on the merit but
appellate court as well as revisional court has rejected the claim of
the petitioners on technical consideration. He submitted that final
judgment dated 27.5.2026 passed by this Court should be reviewed.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the record.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that Writ B No.13482 of 1981
field on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed on merit.
6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter,
perusal of para No.9 to 14 of the judgment/ order dated 27.5.2020 will
be relevant which are as under:
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
7
"9. The order passed in appeal, which has been filed
along with written arguments submitted on behalf of
learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrate that in
appeal, also the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting
the title appeal which has resulted into dismissal of the
appeal in default as well as dismissal of the restoration
application filed in appeal.
10. Considering the fact that petitioner was negligent in
prosecuting the proceeding since from very beginning,
as such the petitioner is not entitled for any discretion
in his favour. The title dispute which has been
adjudicated by the Consolidation Officer in the year
1971 cannot be re-opened on the ground that
petitioner's title appeal/ title revision was not decided
on merit. The record demonstrate that petitioner was
negligent in prosecuting the appeal and revision, as
such no interference is required against the impugned
order passed by consolidation authority.
11. Under the U.P.C.H. Act, proper procedure has been
prescribed for filing title objection/title appeal/ title
revision within certain period of limitation. The Section
5 of Indian Limitation Act is applicable with respect to
the proceeding under the U.P.C.H.Act as provided
under Section 53-B of U.P.C.H. Act, but it does not
mean that negligent litigant will be permitted to file
appeal/revision/restoration application according to his
own wish.
12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, no interference is required against the
impugned order dated 30.1.1980 and 3.9.1981 passed
by respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation .
13. The writ petition is dismissed.
14. No order as to costs. "
7. So for as scope of review application is concerned, Hon'ble Apex
CMRA No. 117 of 2026
8
Court in the case reported in (2023) 160 RD 107 S. Madhusudhan
Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others has held that review is
not rehearing. Paragraph no.35 of the judgment rendered in S.
Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which is
as under:
35. In our opinion, even otherwise, recourse to
successive review petitions against the same order is
impermissible more so, when the Respondents have
miserably failed to draw the attention of this Court to
any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke
review jurisdiction within the ambit of the Rules. Under
the rules, the Respondents were not required to
produce "genuine" documents but new
documents/evidence that was not within their
knowledge and could not have been so even after
exercise of due diligence, which could have turned the
tables in their favour. Nor has any error apparent on
the face of the record been brought out by them.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the ground taken in the review application/ pressed before the
Court and ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in S. Madhusudhan
Reddy (supra), no case for review of final judgment passed on merit
is made out.
9. The review application filed on behalf of applicants is hereby
rejected.
September 23, 2026
PS*
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…