Allahabad High Court

AAKANKSHA DEVIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 19 March 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The order dated 28 August 2025 rejecting the restoration application is quashed, and the matter is remanded to condone the delay and consider the compromise.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 28 August 2025 that rejected a restoration application under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, despite a compromise between the parties. The dispute arose from a sale of a share in an agricultural chak, leading to errors in the mutation and construction of chaks for the petitioner and other respondents. The petitioner and respondents No.3 and No.4 entered into a compromise and filed a restoration application, which the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected as time‑barred. The court found no legal basis to deem the compromise unenforceable and held that the time‑bar argument was insufficient. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, directed the Deputy Director to condone the delay, consider the compromise, and pass appropriate orders within one month, and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the restoration application filed by the petitioner is time‑barred under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Whether a compromise between the parties can be enforced despite the alleged delay in filing the restoration application.
Whether the order dated 28 August 2025 approving the reference and rejecting the restoration application should be quashed.

Legislation cited

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 48(3)

Subjects

restoration of land
compromise
time-barred
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
mutation
agricultural property
writ petition
quashing order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4746 of 2025

Aakanksha Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, Vimal
Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Achal Singh, C.S.C., Rahul Kumar
Yadav, Shambhu Nath Pandey

Court No. - 39

Sl. No. 231

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Shiv Sagar holding brief of Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondents no. 34 and 4, Shri Tarun Gaur, learned
standing counsel for the State respondents and Shri Achal Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 5.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking
quashing of the order dated 6.3.2025 whereby the reference under section
48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been approved by the
Dy. Director of Consolidation-respondent no. 2 and subsequently on a
restoration application filed by the petitioner herein, the same was also
rejected by the order dated 28.8.2025 despite there being a
settlement/compromise between the parties.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents no. 3 and 4 are
the owners of an agriculture property/chak in which the respondent no. 3
and 4 were having their shares. The said respondent no. 3-Chunbad has
sold some portion of his share i.e. 1/2 of the said property. Thereafter the
mutation applications were filed and the directions were issued to prepare
the chak accordingly on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of
the petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that some error
WRIB No. 4746 of 2025
2

has occurred while constructing the chaks of the petitioner as well as the
respondents no. 2 and 3. Thereupon the petitioner and the respondents
no. 3 and 4 have entered into a compromise and a restoration application
was filed, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.8.2025
on the ground that the same being time barred. Since there was no
dispute between the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 and 4 therefore
the respondent no. 2 ought to have entertained the restoration application
and was required to pass the order in accordance with the compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any such
circumstances whereby the said compromise cannot be acted upon except
the restoration application filed by the petitioner was time barred.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.8.2025 is hereby
quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2-Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot with a direction to condone the
delay in filing the restoration application and consider the compromise
submitted by the petitioner as well as the respondents no. 3 and 4 and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
March 20, 2026
o.k.

Digitally signed by :-
OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…