Allahabad High Court

AKRAM KHAN AND 12 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

After the Section 52(1) notification, consolidation authorities lack power to enforce orders, and the petitioners must seek relief under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Summary

The petitioners, who were granted Sirdari leases in 1968 and whose mutation orders were recorded, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer and revenue authorities to correct revenue entries in CH Form 11 and Form 23 and to prevent their eviction. The respondents argued that after the 2008 notification under Section 52(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the consolidation authorities lost the power to enforce such orders, and the petitioners should instead approach the Tehsildar under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Court accepted the respondents' submission, holding that post‑notification the consolidation authorities cannot be compelled to act under Rule 109‑A of the CH Rules. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to invoke Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the concerned Tehsildar within three weeks and obtain a decision within three months, while also staying any dispossession of their holdings. No substantive determination was made on the petitioners’ matured lease rights, and the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions.

Issues considered

Whether the Consolidation Officer can be compelled by mandamus to correct revenue entries after the Section 52(1) notification of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Whether the petitioners must seek relief under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 instead of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules.
Whether a stay of eviction is appropriate pending the petitioners’ proceedings under the Revenue Code.

Legislation cited

Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 52(1)
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38

Subjects

mandamus
consolidation of holdings
revenue records
mutation
lease rights
Section 52(1)
U.P. Revenue Code 2006
stay of eviction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 2637 of 2026

Akram Khan And 12 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh

Court No. - 50
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri S.M.A. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Shri
Sunil Kumar Singh, has accepted notice of the writ petition on behalf of
the respondent no. 5 i.e. Land Management Committee of Village
Gesupur, Pargana & Tehsil-Sikandarabad, District-Bulandshahar.

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Bulandshahar,
and Revenue Authorities, Tehsil-Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar to
correct the revenue entries of the petitioners as per the entry of CH Form
11 and CH Form 23 with regard to Patta of the petitioners.

A further prayer in the nature of the mandamus commanding the
respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land in question allotted
to them under the leases has also been prayed for.

Shri Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners
as well as their predecessors in interest were granted Sirdari leases as far
as back in the year 1968 and mutation orders in respect of the grant of
leases was accordingly passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
Sikandarabad, vide order dated 29.05.1968. The mutation order passed in
favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioner no. 2 has been
brought on record as anneuxre 4 to the writ petition.

It is next contended that the Consolidation Operations intervened,
objections were filed under Section 9A-2 which came to be decided by
WRIB No. 2637 of 2026
2

order dated 02.05.1995 brought on record as Anneuxre no. 35 to the writ
petition. Pursuant to the orders the entries were made in CH Form 11 as
well as CH form 23. However, subsequent entries in the Revenue Records
could not be made and the Consolidation Operations were de-notified
some time in the year 2008. He further submits that since the predecessors
in interest of the petitioners were granted Sirdari leases which
subsequently by passage of time matured into the Bhumidhari rights and
as such their names are liable to be recorded over the relevant Revenue
Records and in such view of the matter appropriate directions be issued,
as prayed for.

Shri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel, submits that Notification
under Section 52 (1) of the CH Act admittedly has taken place in the year
2008. The orders sought to be enforced have been passed during the
period the Consolidation Operations were very much going on and
therefore, the compliance of the orders passed by the Consolidation
Authorities cannot be done under Rule 109-A of the Rules of the CH
Rules as the Consolidation Authorities seized to have any power after
Notification under Section 52. He further submits that the petitioners may
approach the Tehsil Authorities and invoke the provisions under the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.

Having heard, respective counsels for the parties, I find substance in the
submissions advanced by Shri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel.
Admittedly, after Notification under Section 52 (1) of the CH Act, the
Consolidation Authorities would cease to have powers to enforce the
orders and as such recourse to the Provisions of Rule 109-A of the CH
Rules is not available to the petitioners. However, since the petitioners
have matured their rights over the land allotted to them under the leases
their names are required to be recorded over the respective lands in
question.

In such circumstances, liberty is granted to the petitioners to invoke the
Provisions of Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by filing
appropriate proceedings.

In the eventuality of initiating the proceedings under UP Revenue Code,
WRIB No. 2637 of 2026
3

2006, before the Tehsildar concerned, within a period of three weeks from
today, it is expected from the Tehsildar concerned to consider all aspects
of the matter, provide opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and
pass appropriate orders on the applications moved by the petitioners
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rights
of the petitioners matured under the respective leases granted to the
predecessors in interest of the petitioners. The Tehsildar concerned, is
expected to examine the respective rights and thereafter pass orders
strictly in accordance with law.

Till the period of three months or till the decision by the Tehsildar
concerned, which ever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed
from their respective holdings.

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed off.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
September 11, 2026
Deepak/

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…