SURENDRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 1105 of 2026

Surendra And Another
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up And 5 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ramakant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Bhupendra
                                 Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 55
                     HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Amit Gupta, holding brief
of Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha and
Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by
respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, dated 23.12.1997, 07.12.2023 and 29.10.2025,
respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the
basis of their possession over plot nos.545/2, they filed an objection
before the Consolidation Officer claiming rights under Section 122-B(4-
F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The
aforesaid objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order
dated 23.12.1997. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the
Settlement Officer Consolidation was allowed by the order dated
12.07.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
after 24 years the respondent no.6 filed a restoration application for
setting aside the order dated 12.07.1999, which was allowed by the order
dated 07.12.2023, passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, setting
aside the aforesaid order and restoring the appeal to its original number.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the application
for restoration having been filed after 24 years was highly time barred and
                                                       WRIB No. 1105 of 2026
                               2


could not have been allowed at the instance of respondent no.6, who
admittedly is claiming right on the basis of sale deed executed by
Haridwar and another, who also claimed possession over the said land
without any document of title. Once the Settlement Officer Consolidation
came to the conclusion that plot no.545/2 was the gaon sabha land, the
recall application on behalf of respondent no.6 was not maintainable. The
respondent no.2 has erred in rejecting the revision only on the ground that
the appeal is still to be decided on merits, therefore, no interference is
required with the order dated 07.12.2023.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6
has contended that he is transferee of Haridwar and another whose rights
were recognized over plot no.545/2 area 0.089 hectares and only after
obtaining permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the sale
deed dated 25.03.2023 was executed. Till date, no notification under
Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been published
in the village where land in dispute is situated. He further submits that
there is no other land in plot no.545/2 over which any right could have
been granted to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 12.07.1999 was
liable to be set aside, having been passed behind back of persons already
in possession over the said plot and recorded in the revenue records at the
start of consolidation proceedings.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

7. Perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated
07.12.2023 shows that the said order has been passed on the ground that
the order dated 12.07.1999 appears to be suspicious, however, he has not
rejected the claim of petitioner and has only restored the appeal to its
original number for being decided afresh, therefore, the petitioners have
opportunity to establish their case before the Settlement Officer
Consolidation. Moreover, the perusal of order dated 12.07.1999 shows
that no finding had been recorded regarding period of possession of the
petitioners over the plot in question before allowing their claim under
Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950. In such view of the matter, I find
no infirmity in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated
                                                                                                                      WRIB No. 1105 of 2026
                                                                                  3


                                    07.12.2023. The respondent no.2 was justified in dismissing the revision
                                    as the matter is still to be decided on merits by the appellate authority.

                                    8. The objection of respondent no.6 that consolidation authorities had no
                                    jurisdiction to decide rights of petitioners under Section 122-B(4-F) of the
                                    Act of 1950, is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court
                                    in the case of Satpal vs. Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation and
                                    others reported in 2015 (129) RD 740. Relevant paragraph no.12 of the
                                    aforesaid judgment reads as under:

                                            "12. So far as the finding recorded by respondents- 1 and 2 that the consolidation
                                            authorities have no jurisdiction to confer right under Section 122 B (4 F) of UP Act No. 1

                                            of 1951 is concerned, it is incorrect. A perusal of Section shows that section originally

                                            added gives a presumption that the person in occupation who falls in the category as

                                            enumerated shall be deemed to be admitted as sirdar. Section is further amended by UP

                                            Act No. 11 of 2002 and it has been further clarified that it shall not be necessary for such

                                            occupant to institute a suit for declaration of his right as bhumidhar with transferable right

                                            in that land. Thus the right is conferred by the statute and not by any authority. If the right

                                            is proved then it is well within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to record the

                                            name of any person. In this case right of the petitioner is not proved. Inasmuch as no

                                            documentary evidence has been filed to prove his possession while the oral evidence was

                                            contradictory of the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. Thus no relief

                                            can be granted to the petitioner."


                                    9. Considering the facts and circumstances, the present petition is
                                    disposed of with direction to respondent no.3, the Settlement Officer
                                    Consolidation, Ghazipur, to decide the appeal, pending before him, by
                                    passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the
                                    concerned parties, within a period of three months from the date of
                                    presentation of a certified copy of this order.



                                                                                                                         (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Ashok Kr.




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