Allahabad High Court

MOHD. HASHIM and ANR.versusD.D.C. PRATAPGARH and 2 ORS.

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted
Bench: ALOK MATHUR

Holding

The Court held that the 23‑08‑1972 order is genuine, set aside the later orders, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

Summary

The petitioners sought to confirm their right over Plot No. 679, a piece of land historically held by Zamindars and later possessed by their father Malhoo for fifty years. Malhoo obtained a favorable order from the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23‑08‑1972 directing the land to be recorded in his name, but the order was not implemented. In 1997 the petitioners obtained relief under Rule 109 of the Consolidation of Holding Rules, which was later challenged by the respondents who alleged that the 1972 order was forged. The Deputy Director, relying on the alleged absence of records, declared the order forged and directed the land to revert to the State, rejecting the petitioners' claim. The petitioners filed a writ petition, produced the original certified copy of the 1972 order, and argued that the order was genuine. The High Court, after examining the certified copy, set aside the 2003 and 2004 orders, allowed the writ, and remitted the matter to the Deputy Director for fresh adjudication.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 23‑08‑1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was forged or genuine.
Whether the subsequent orders of the Deputy Director rejecting the petitioners' claim are valid.

Legislation cited

Consolidation of Holding Act — s. 11(C)
Consolidation of Holding Rules — s. Rule 109

Subjects

land consolidation
forged order
writ petition
property rights
Section 11(C)
Rule 109
remand

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - B No. - 472 of 2004

Mohd. Hashim And Anr.
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

D.D.C. Pratapgarh And 2 Ors.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.N. Ojha, Abhishek Mishra, Ashok Kr.
Tripathi, Hari Om Pandey, Hemant
Tripathi, Ram Lagan Mishra, Shailesh
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Arun Kumar Tripathi, Ashok
Kumar Tripathi, Dharmendra Kumar,
R.N. Gupta

Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Hari Om Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel respondent No. 1 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel
for respondent No. 3.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that present
dispute pertains to the property which prior to independence was held by
Zamindar Uma Pratap Singh, Lal Shambhu Narain Singh, Vrijendra Bhan
Singh and Rajendra Bhan Singh of Village Sarai Maghai, Pargana &
Tehsil - Patti, District Pratapgarh. With regard to Plot No. 679m area 1-0-
0 of which Izazatnama was given to one Malhoo for planting grove
(Bagh). Malhoo was the father of the petitioners but his name was not
recorded in the revenue records, however an entry was made in column 4
of the khatauni of the concerned area.

3. It has been submitted that subsequently when the village came under
consolidation operations and Malhoo, the father of the petitioners was
found to be in possession of the disputed property for 50 years and Plot
No. 679 was a big plot and accordingly objections were filed before
Assistant Consolidation Officer by Malhoo which were rejected.
Subsequently he filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation
which was also rejected by means of order dated 20.01.1971 in Appeal
WRIB No. 472 of 2004
2

No. 740 (Malhoo Vs. Gram Sabha) and a further revision filed by Malhoo
before Dy. Director of Consolidation was allowed in his favour by means
of judgment and order dated 23.08.1972.

4. While allowing the appeal of Malhoo, the Dy. Director of
Consolidation has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation dated 20.01.1971 and directed that Plot No. 679m 1-0-1 be
recorded in the name of Malhoo as Sirdar. As the order dated 23.08.1972
was not complied with, an application under Rule 109 of the
Consolidation of Holding Rules was preferred by Malhoo the father of the
petitioners. The said application was allowed on 20.02.1997 by
Consolidation Officer and soon thereafter an application for recall was
preferred by respondent No. 2 on 04.09.2003. In the application for recall,
it was stated that the order of Dy. Director of Consolidation dated
23.08.1972 was forged and no rights would accrue to the petitioners on
the basis of a forged order. It was further stated that the application under
Rule 109 of Consolidation of Holding Rules was highly belated and was
filed more than 25 years after the order was passed in revision by the Dy.
Director of Consolidation and consequently prayed for rejection of the
application under Rule 109 of Consolidation of Holding Rules.

5. The Dy. Director of Consolidation considered the application filed by
private respondent and held that such an application would not be
maintainable at the behest of a person who does not have any interest or
right in the disputed property but considered the provisions of Section
11(C) of the Consolidation of Holding Act and held that in case a land of
the State or gaon sabha is sought to be usurped by any private individual
then the revenue authorities would be duty bound to take notice of such
proceedings and pass appropriate orders thereon. He thereafter proceeded
to hold that the record pertaining to the appeal No. 740 in which the order
dated 23.08.1972 was passed was missing and therefore it could not be
confirmed whether the proceedings were genuine or forged and
accordingly it is in the aforesaid to hold that order dated 23.01.1972 was
forged and fabricated and does not exist on record and consequently no
rights would pass on the petitioner on the basis of such a forged order and
thereby directed the land to be recorded in favour of the State. By his
order dated 04.09.2003 even the application for recall filed by the
WRIB No. 472 of 2004
3

petitioner was rejected by means of order dated 26.02.2004 and
accordingly in the present writ petition validity of both the aforesaid
orders has been challenged.

6. Though, on the basis of material on record this Court would have
proceeded to uphold the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation
inasmuch as there was no material available to indicate that the petitioners
had in fact instituted revisional proceedings before the Dy. Director of
Consolidation which resulted in passing of the order dated 23.08.1972 and
there would not have been any material to interfere in the findings
recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolidation holding that the said order
was forged and fabricated.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances at the request of the petitioners, one
day time was granted to him and today when the matter has been taken
up an original certified copy of the order dated 23.08.1972 has been
produced before this Court. The copy of the said order has also been
perused by learned counsel for respondents and from a bare perusal of the
said order it would not be concluded that the said order is forged or
fabricated. It seems that the petitioners had the copy of the said order with
them but never produced it in the proceedings before the Dy. Director of
Consolidation and only a typed copy of the aforesaid order was filed,
which led the Dy. Director of Consolidation to return a finding that the
proceedings as well as order was forged. We take note of the fact that
substantial rights of the petitioner would be effected in case the certified
copy produced before us is authentic and genuine.

8. In light of the fact that original certified copy has been produced before
this Court, this Court finds that the merit of the case had not been
adjudicated by the Dy. Director of Consolidation correctly, accordingly
the matter deserves to be adjudicated on merits. In light of the above and
with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is allowed. The orders
dated 26.02.2009 and 04.09.2003 are set aside. The matter is remitted to
the Dy. Director of Consolidation to decide the mater afresh, the
petitioners are directed to produce original certified copy of the order
dated 23.08.1972 which has been produced before this Court and the
respondents shall also be given liberty to file a fresh objections / counter
WRIB No. 472 of 2004
4

affidavit and the proceeding be concluded by Dy. Director of
Consolidation with expedition.

9. It is expected that Dy. Director of Consolidation shall conclude the
aforesaid proceedings expeditiously, say, within a period of three months
from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not examined merits of the
controversy and merely on the basis of production of the original certified
copy of the order has persuaded this Court to allow the writ petition and
remand the matter back for adjudication afresh.

(Alok Mathur,J.)
October 30, 2025
Ravi/

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…