Allahabad High Court

JAGDAMBA PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 23 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

Orders passed under Rule 109 cannot be used to correct revenue records based on orders predating the Section 52 notification; such corrections must be sought under Section 27(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

Summary

Jagdamba Prasad filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, which sought to correct revenue records in line with a Settlement Officer’s order dated 19‑July‑1966. The Consolidation Officer held that because the 1966 order preceded the notification under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, it could not be implemented under Rule 109 but only under Section 27(3) of the Act by the Collector. The petitioner’s counsel did not dispute this finding, and the same view was upheld by the Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Court agreed that the proper remedy for correcting records based on pre‑Section 52 orders is a petition under Section 27(3) to the Collector, not a Rule 109 application. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 27(3).

Issues considered

Whether an application under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules is maintainable for correcting revenue records based on an order passed before the Section 52 notification.
Whether the appropriate remedy for such correction is under Section 27(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

Legislation cited

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 — s. 27, 52

Subjects

Consolidation of Holdings
Revenue records
Section 52
Section 27(3)
Rule 109
Uttar Pradesh
Writ petition
Correction of records

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 702 of 2026

Jagdamba Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 23 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Pathak, Suresh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the
respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, dated 17.10.2025, 6.12.2023 and 9.9.2022,
arising out of proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Rules, 1954.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the
order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 10.3.1966, division of holdings
was carried out between the petitioner and the second set of respondents
in respect of Khata No. 167 and 170. The said order was modified in
appeal by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, dated
19.7.1966. It is contended that at the time of preparation of final records
during consolidation proceedings the order of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation was overlooked and the records were finalized on the basis
of order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 10.3.1966. The petitioner
moved an application under Rule 109 of the Rules for getting the records
corrected in accordance with the order of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, dated 19.7.1966, which has been rejected by the order of
the Consolidation Officer, dated 9.9.2022, on the ground that the
aforesaid order was passed prior to issuance of notification under Section
52 of the Act, which was issued on 6.3.1971, therefore, the application
was not maintainable. The aforesaid order has been upheld in appeal and
in revision by the respondent nos. 3 & 2.
WRIB No. 702 of 2026
2

4. I have considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.

5. The Consolidation Officer while rejecting the application of the
petitioner under Section 52 of the C.H. Act read with Rule 109 of the
Rules of 1954, has held that the order sought to be implemented, dated
19.7.1966, was passed much prior to issuance of notification under
Section 52 of the Act and according to circular of the Consolidation
Commissioner, dated 8.11.2017, the implementation of such orders,
which were passed prior to issuance of notification Section 52 of the Act,
shall not be carried out under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954, but under
sub section (3) of Section 27 of the Act by the Collector.

6. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer has not
been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. The reasons recorded by
the Consolidation Officer has been reiterated by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the
appeal and revision filed by the petitioner.

7. In view of the fact that the appropriate remedy for correction of
revenue records after notification under Section 52(1) of the Act on basis
of an order passed earlier was under Section 27(3) of the Act, then the
application made by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of the Rules was
rightly rejected and the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are
justified requiring no interference by this Court.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application under sub-
section (3) of Section 27 of the Act before the Collector for correction of
revenue records on the basis of the order dated 19.7.1966. If any such
application is made by the petitioner, it shall be considered and decided,
in accordance with law.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…