Allahabad High Court

DHARAM RAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 16 February 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as there is no ground for interference with the Collector’s and Board of Revenue’s orders.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharam Raj, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 7 November 2001 ex‑parte order of the Collector, Azamgarh, and a 31 May 2016 order of the Board of Revenue, both of which removed his and other villagers’ names from land records under Sections 33, 39 and 225 of the Land Revenue Act. He alleged that the Collector acted without notice or hearing and that a prior suit under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and Land Revenue Act, 1950, which had been decreed in his favour, barred the revenue proceedings. The Court examined the summary nature of the Collector’s proceedings, noted the absence of any record of the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s orders, and observed that the petitioner had not pursued his claim through the consolidation authorities as required. It also found that the Board of Revenue correctly dismissed the petitioner’s revision on procedural grounds, given the petitioner’s long absence. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether an ex‑parte order passed by the Collector under Sections 33, 39 and 225 of the Land Revenue Act can be set aside by a writ petition.
Whether the prior suit and subsequent restoration applications under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Revenue Act, 1950, preclude the revenue authority’s summary proceedings.
Whether the lack of notice and hearing renders the Collector’s order void.
Whether the Board of Revenue’s dismissal of the revision is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Land Revenue Act — s. 225, 33, 39
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 — s. 48
U.P. Zamindari and Land Revenue Act, 1950 — s. 229B

Subjects

writ petition
land revenue
ex‑parte order
summary proceedings
notice and hearing
Uttar Pradesh
consolidation of holdings
restoration of land

Judgment

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99814

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 18142 of 2017

Petitioner :- Dharam Raj
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Srivastav,Aqeel
Ahmad,Kunwar Rajan,Manoj Yadav,Randhir Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard Shri Aqeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2
and 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders
dated 7.11.2001 passed by the Collector, Azamgarh and the one
dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at
Lucknow.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a
complaint was filed by the respondent no. 5 before the Collector
against Ram Dular and others under Section 33/39/225 of the Land
Revenue Act on the ground that the disputed land was recorded in
the name of the Forest Department for the Fasli years 1377 to
1379. After calling for a report from the Tehsil Authorities, the
impugned order dated 7.11.2001 was passed directing expunging
the name of the petitioner and other villagers from the disputed
Khatas. It is stated that the order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the
respondent no. 3 is without issuing any notice and without any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further stated that
prior to the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the
respondent no. 3, the petitioner and his brothers had filed a suit
under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Azamgarh which was decreed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer on 16.6.1980. Against that order, one Teerath
Raj filed restoration application which was dismissed by an order
dated 29.4.1998. Against that order, a fresh restoration application
was filed which was also dismissed on 10.6.2002. The revision
filed against this order dated 10.6.2002 was also dismissed by the
Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh on 8.4.2006.

4. It has not been mentioned in the writ petition whether the order
dated 8.6.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh
was challenged or whether it has become final.

5. It is further stated that against the ex-parte order dated
7.11.2001, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent no.
2 on 8.1.2002 which was dismissed on 31.5.2016 by a non-
speaking order. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner
pursuant to which the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 was passed,
could not have taken to its conclusion in view of the judgement in
the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 229B of the Act,
1950.

6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 7.11.2001 passed by the
Collector, Azamgarh reveals that nobody appeared for the
respondents when the matter was taken up. The Collector referred
to the report of the record keeper which reflected that in all the
Khatauni pertaining to 1362 Fasli, Khata No. 172 was recorded as
forest, on which, fraudulently the name of the opposite parties
were recorded. It was noticed that in the Khatauni for the Fasli
years 1377 to 1379 the aforesaid plots of land were registered as
forest and it was only for the first time in the years 1380 to 1382
Fasli, the names of the opposite parties were recorded in the
revenue records; whereas as per the report of the record keeper
none of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar that were
referred in the case were available on record. The Collector also
referred to the fact that there is no record of any order of the Sub-
Divisional Officer, whereby, the opposite parties were declared as
'Sirdar'.

7. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 31.5.2016 passed on
the revision filed by the petitioner has noted the long absence of
the revisionist and his counsel and therefore, the revision was
dismissed after noting that the revision had no legality on merit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph no.
7 of the revision filed by him before the Board in which it is
mentioned that the complainant had filed an objection before the
consolidation Authority which was dismissed, against which, an
appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation
which was also dismissed and, thereafter, a revision was filed
before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948, which is pending.

9. The proceedings before the Collector were admittedly under
Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act which are summary in
nature. No title can enure to a private party on the basis of such
summary proceedings. For setting up a claim, the affected party
has the option to file a suit for declaration which admittedly has
been done by the petitioner in which an order is stated to have
been passed by the Additional Collector, Azamgarh. There is no
material on record to demonstrate whether that order has become
final or not. Further, when it is the case of the petitioner that the
consolidation proceedings in respect of the plots of the petitioner
were underway then it was for the petitioner to have staked his
claim before the consolidation Authorities, but there is no material
on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had taken any such
step.

10. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in this
writ petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction and it is, accordingly,
dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.5.2023
A. V. Singh

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…