SAURABH SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1002 of 2026

Saurabh Singh and 4 others
                                                          …..Appellant(s)

                                 Versus

State of U.P. and 10 others
                                                         …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)           : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Anil Kumar, Anil Kumar Rai,
                                     C.S.C.


Chief Justice's Court

            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1.    Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellants,
learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Anil
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 6 to 11.

2.    This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 01.07.2026,
whereby learned Single Judge has allowed Writ-B No. 279 of 2025
(Rahul Pratap Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others) and has
issued a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude consolidation
proceedings in the village in question, strictly in accordance with the
provisions contained under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
('the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, expeditiously, preferably,
within a period of six months from the date of production of certified
copy of the order.
                                    2
                                                    SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026

3.    The appellants, who are five in number, were not parties to the
writ petition, however, an application for intervention/impleadment was
filed before the writ court on behalf of six persons including these five
appellants with a prayer to implead them as respondents in the writ
petition. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the said
application was not disposed of by the learned Single Judge.

4.    We find that there is no application seeking leave to file appeal. At
the same time, we have perused the first paragraph of the order passed
by the learned Single Judge, wherein it has been indicated that counsel
for the intervener was also heard and, therefore, we proceed to consider
the appeal as non-defective and on merits.

5.    The writ petition giving rise to the appeal was filed by the private
respondents taking plea that consolidation process in Gram Sabha Biral,
Tehsil Budhna, District Muzaffarnagar had not been completed for the
last 34 years and, accordingly, direction was sought for the respondent
authorities to take appropriate action regarding demarcation and transfer
of possession and to complete the consolidation proceedings in
accordance with law.

6.    When the writ petition initially came up before the learned Single
Judge, instructions were called from the State-respondents, pursuant
whereto instructions dated 03.03.3025/01.03.2025 were placed before
the learned Single Judge, which have been reproduced in paragraph No.
11 of the order. Further, another instructions dated 04.09.2025 have been
reproduced in paragraph No. 12 of the order and, thereafter, the learned
Single Judge has recorded his conclusion that since the village in
question was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 25.08.1990 and the
consolidation operations had not been completed despite expiry of more
than 35 years, in case the reasons given in the instructions for not
completing consolidation proceedings were accepted, the purpose of
enactment of the Act would be frustrated.

7.    Learned Single Judge, thereafter, after placing reliance on
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1990 (Rajaram
                                     3
                                                     SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026

Ojha Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and others),
decided on 31.03.2014, 2015 (126) RD 124, Jasmit Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others: 2016 (131) RD 478 and Dalip Singh and others Vs.
Vikram Singh and others: 2015 (128) RD 666, came to the conclusion
that consolidation proceedings should be completed within a time bound
period and, consequently, allowed the writ petition by issuing directions,
already indicated herein-before.

8.       Learned counsel for the appellants has made submissions that the
instructions produced before the writ court were not carefully analysed
by the learned Single Judge and once it was indicated in the instructions
that most of the villagers were opposing the consolidation operations and
that certain appeals and restoration applications were pending disposal,
learned Single Judge should not have issued the directions for
completion of consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the order of the
writ court is liable to be set aside. Further submission has been made that
in view of provisions of Section 6 read with Rule 17 of the Rules framed
under the Act, since holding of conslidation operations is not in public
interest, no direction for their completion should have been issued.

9.       Learned Standing Counsel has supported the order and has made
submissions that a thoughtful consideration has been made by learned
Single Judge to arrive a conclusion based upon the decisions of this
Court and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order impugned.

10.      Learned counsel for private respondents has made submissions
that appellant no. 1 was working as Village Pradhan and, in the said
capacity, he had approved a resolution dated 11.03.2024 passed by the
Gaon Sabha for completion of the consolidation operations and,
therefore, at least the appellant no. 1 has no locus to raise a challenge to
the order of the learned Single Judge that has been passed on the same
lines.

11.      Further submission has been made that there being more than
2000 chakholders, objection raised and intervention sought to be made in
writ proceedings and further challenge laid by way of appeal at the
                                     4
                                                     SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026

instance of only five persons who are encroachers over the Gaon Sabha
land, is not sustainable and, therefore, the appeal has no force.

12.   Placing reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this
Court in Subhash Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others:
2014 (123) RD 744, submission has been made that consolidation
authorities are not required to await disposal of objections before
initiating proceedings for preparation and publication of consolidation
schemes under the Act and, therefore, pendency of certain matters, as
noted in the instructions, would not be a bar against completion of
consolidation proceedings and the learned Single Judge has rightly
issued appropriate directions, which need not be interfered with.

13.   We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

14.   As noted herein-before, learned Single Judge has passed a detailed
order after reproducing instructions dated 03.03.2025/01.03.2025 and
04.09.2025 in their entirety which, for the sake of brevity, are not being
reproduced in this order. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that
the notification under Section 4(2) of the Act was published in the year
1990 whereafter, time and again, proceedings were attempted to be
completed by the consolidation authorities, however, on account of
groupism and party politics, some of the villagers did not allow the
authorities to complete the process. The instructions further indicate that
51 time-barred appeals and 40 restoration applications were pending and
that the officers intended to complete proceedings after disposal of the
said time barred appeals/applications.

15.   Learned Single Judge, after close scrutiny of the instructions and
considering the fact that more than three decades had passed since when
the proceedings had begun but the same were not allowed to be
completed on account of the reasons indicated herein-before, allowed the
writ petition and issued directions for completion of consolidation
process.
                                     5
                                                    SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026

16.   In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge is based upon
the correct interpretation of factual and legal position governing the
issue involved and the decisions on applicability of Rule 17, Sections 4
and 6 of the Act, laying down that functions undertaken by the
consolidation authorities are legislative in nature and that Rule 17 is not
mandatory, have been correctly applied in the facts of the case.

17.   In the cited judgment in the case of Subhash Chand (supra), a
learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various decisions,
has laid down that consolidation authorities are not required to await
disposal of all objections etc. before initiating and completing
proceedings for consolidation schemes. We may also refer to an order
dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
No. 152 of 2025, wherein also, after taking into consideration the
judgments in the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), Rajaram Ojha (supra)
and many other judgments, this Court declined to interfere with the
legislative functions of the consolidation authorities and even held a
challenge to the same through a public interest litigation, as not
maintainable.

18.   Once the record indicates that consolidation operations began with
issuance of notification under Section 4 in the year 1990, what
prevented the appellants from taking steps either way, has not been
explained to us and whenever authorities attempted to complete the
process, except for obstructing the same for one reason or the other,
nothing was done by the appellants in aid of proceedings.

19.   Further, the appellants being only five in number out of more than
two thousand villagers, their attempted intervention in the writ petition
cannot be treated in a representative capacity on behalf of large number
of villagers. In any case, the Court cannot become a party to the
obstructions caused by the appellants creating hindrance in completion
of statutory functions by the State-respondents.

20.   As far as the submission made on behalf of the respondents that
appellant no. 1 being Pradhan and having approved resolution towards
                                                                     6
                                                                                     SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026

                            completion of consolidation operations has no locus to raise a challenge
                            to the order impugned, we find from the copy of the resolution dated
                            11.03.2024 produced before us that the resolution had, in fact, indicated
                            about pendency of certain appeals and completion of process after
                            disposal of the same and, therefore, at least to that extent, we are not
                            inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondents
                            that appellant no. 1 has taken a stand different from the previous one.

                            21.         Nevertheless, mere filing/pendency of certain defective appeals or
                            restoration applications, in our opinion, would not preclude the
                            consolidation authorities from concluding the process by exercising their
                            statutory functions and, in the facts of the case where 36 years have
                            passed since when the consolidation proceedings had begun in terms of
                            notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, we are not inclined to
                            interfere in the matter.

                            22.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the
                            order passed by the learned Single Judge.

                            23.         The appeal has no force; the same is, therefore, dismissed.




                                                             (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

                            September 07, 2026
                            AKShukla/-




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