# Achhaibar Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 815
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-13
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 612 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/achhaibar-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49537
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,1953 - Sections 12 & 48 (3) - U.P.
Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952 - Section 12, 13
& 15A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order 1 Rule 8 - Petitioners challenged
order passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, whereby reference allowed,
Tahsildar's order dated 26.05.1952 set
aside, and all plots in Khata No. 585
directed to be re-recorded as 'Banjar' in
Banjar Khata - Gaon Sabha did not file any
objection asserting title or interest in
disputed land - In absence of such
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection, its claim could not have been
entertained indirectly, circumventing Chak
Allotment Scheme - Reference titled 'Gaon
Sabha vs. X & ors.' was without any formal
complaint by Gaon Sabha - Purported
complaint lacks complainant's signature
and any list of signatories, rendering it
invalid in law - Consequently, Gaon
Sabha's
claim
could
not
have
been
adjudicated under guise of reference
proceedings - Moreover, no proceedings
were pending before any Consolidation
Authority at time of reference, making
reference itself untenable - Accordingly,
adjudication by DDC legally unsustainable
and once proceedings in which impugned
order passed are itself not maintainable,
therefore, impugned order is also illegal,
set aside. (Para 1, 94)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,836 of 101,992. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39836 for what follows._

10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
815
powder form being used for ripening of the
fruits. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also drawn out attention to the
notification which is at page No.67
(Annexure -4) dated 16th August, 2018.

3. It appears that Food Safety and
Standards Authority of India has permitted
import of Ethepone in powder form,
however, as per the petitioner, the effect of
this is dangerous to public health.

4. It appears that to arrive at any
conclusion about the effect of Ethepone in
powder form, which is being used for
artificial ripening of the fruits, depends
upon the cogent and convincing evidence
produced by the petitioner. Evidence of
experts in the field is also required which
will be subject to the cross-examination by
the other side. In this eventuality, we see no
reason to entertain this writ petition.

5.
Nevertheless,
we
direct
the
respondents to treat this writ petition as a
representation and look into the grievances
ventilated by the petitioner. If need arises,
they can also have further discussion with
the experts to revisit the conclusions
arrived at by the respondents for the usage
of Ethepone in powder form which is
allowed to be used for artificial ripening of
the fruits. 6. With these observations, this
writ petition is disposed of. pending
applications also stand disposed of"

Rather than helping the petitioner, we
find the said decision to be more aligned to
the opinion expressed by us i.e. being
matters involving fact disputes, they may
not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

49. In view of the basic distinction of
facts and context seen to exist, the other
decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in Additional
District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn.
Vs Siri Ram (supra) and Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education (supra) are clearly
of no application.

50. Accordingly, while no relief is
being granted as prayed for, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction, in
case the petitioner files its reply to the
show cause notice dated 21.12.2021 within
a period of four weeks from today, the
adjudicating
authority
may
ensure
expeditious conclusion of the adjudication
proceedings, after due opportunity of
hearing etc. to the petitioner, preferably
within a period of three months therefrom.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 815
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ-B No. 612 of 2022
alongwith other connected cases

Achhaibar Yadav & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kripa Shanker, Sri Rama Shanker

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,1953 - Sections 12 & 48 (3) - U.P.
Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952 - Section 12, 13
& 15A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order 1 Rule 8 - Petitioners challenged
order passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, whereby reference allowed,
Tahsildar's order dated 26.05.1952 set
aside, and all plots in Khata No. 585
directed to be re-recorded as 'Banjar' in
Banjar Khata - Gaon Sabha did not file any
objection asserting title or interest in
disputed land - In absence of such
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection, its claim could not have been
entertained indirectly, circumventing Chak
Allotment Scheme - Reference titled 'Gaon
Sabha vs. X & ors.' was without any formal
complaint by Gaon Sabha - Purported
complaint lacks complainant's signature
and any list of signatories, rendering it
invalid in law - Consequently, Gaon
Sabha's
claim
could
not
have
been
adjudicated under guise of reference
proceedings - Moreover, no proceedings
were pending before any Consolidation
Authority at time of reference, making
reference itself untenable - Accordingly,
adjudication by DDC legally unsustainable
and once proceedings in which impugned
order passed are itself not maintainable,
therefore, impugned order is also illegal,
set aside. (Para 1, 94)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Makhan Singh Vs Sohan Singh & ors., (1985)
4 SCC 469, (Para 11)

2. Smt. Shakuntla & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2019 (5) ADJ 871

3. Babu Lal & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2020 (4)
ADJ 380

4. Rama Vs. St. of U.P., 1971 RD 520 and
Baijnath Vs D.D.C., 1986 RD 306

5. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs Arthur
Import and Export Company & ors., (2019) SCC
191, (Para 6)

6. Smt. Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue & ors.,
(2022) 4 ADJ 578, (Para 21)

7. Brahamanand Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(Writ-C No. 143 of 2021), (Para 5)

8. Nazir Ahamad Vs King Emperor, 1936 SCC
OnLine PC 41

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. All these writ petitions have been
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
14.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Varanasi (hereinafter
referred to as the DDC) in Reference No.
660 of 2019 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ramashray
and others), under Section 48 (3) of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein
after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act),
Village-Rampur Pargana-Kolasala, DistrictVaranasi,
whereby
aforementioned
reference has been allowed. The alleged
order of the Tahsildar dated 26.05.1952 has
been set aside. It has also been directed that
all the plots recorded in Khata No. 585 in
the Khatauni of 1366 to 1368 Fasli, as
Banjar shall be re-recorded in the Banjar
Khata.

2. That Village-Rampur, ParganaKolasala, District-Varanasi, where the land
in dispute is situate was brought under
Consolidation operations by means of a
Gazette
notification
dated
09.08.1972
published under Section 4 (2) of the
U.P.C.H. Act.

3. It transpires from record that no
objection under Section 9A(2) of the
U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the Gaon Sabha
concerned claiming right, title or interest
over the land in dispute. Land in dispute,
which was part of the consolidation area,
was accorded valuation. No objection
under section 9-B of the U.P.C.H. Act was
filed by the Gaon Sabha disputing the
valuation accorded to the land in dispute.
As such, the land in dispute was included in
the Chak Allotment Scheme. Resultantly,
new tenures came to be allotted to different
land holders on the land in dispute by
virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
817

4. Subsequently, village-Rampur,
where the land in dispute is situate was
denotified for the purposes of consolidation
by means of a Gazette Notification dated
29.08.2020. The effect of the same was that
consolidation operations in the village,
where the land in dispute is situate came to
an end.

5. During pendency of consolidation
operations, an application dated 30.12.17
alleged to have been filed on behalf of most
of the villagers of Village-Rampur, was
submitted before the District Magistrate,
Varanasi, alleging therein that the names of
tenure
holders,
which
have
been
fraudulently recorded on the basis of forged
lease, alleged to have been executed by
Bhoodan Yagya Committee over Survey
Plot No. 372/1 area 10.72 acres be
expunged and the said plot be re-recorded
in the Banjar Khata as was previously
recorded. It is apposite to mention here that
the said complaint is not signed by any
individual villager nor a list is appended to
the same disclosing the names and
signature of the villagers' who have signed
the complaint. The same is manifest from
the complaint itself, copy of which is on record
as Annexure-1 in WRIT-B No. 612 of 2022
(Acchaibar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). It is this
complaint, which has given rise to the litigation
out of which, this bunch of writ petition arises.

6. As per the aforesaid application, the
dispute relates to following plots situate in VillageRampur, Pargana-Kolasala, District-Varanasi:-

(I) Plot No. 372/1 Bhoodan area 10.72 acres.

(II) Plot No. 420/1 Bhoodan area 05.50
acres.

(III) Plot No. 639/1 Bhoodan area 03.74
acres.

(IV) Plot No. 706/1 Bhoodan area 04.83
acres.

(V) Plot No. 980/1 Bhoodan area 26.17
acres.

(VI) Plot No. 1060/1 Bhoodan area 05.29
acres.

(VII) Plot No. 10612/1 Bhoodan area 02.80
acres.

(VIII) Plot No. 1136/1 Bhoodan area 07.87
acres.

(IX) Plot No. 1167/1 Bhoodan area 08.86
acres.

(X) Plot No. 1731/1 Bhoodan area 06.68
acres.

(XI) Plot No. 1758/1 Bhoodan area 03.93
acres.

(XII) Plot No. 1770/1 Bhoodan area 02.81
acres.

(XIII) Plot No. 2081 Bhoodan area 04.06
acres.

(XIV) Plot No. 2418 Bhoodan area 10.66
acres.

(XV) Plot No. 2442 Bhoodan area 03.52
acres.

((XVI) Plot No. 2456 Bhoodan area 14.68
acres.

(XVII) Plot No. 2457 Bhoodan area 06.50
acres.

(XVIII) Plot No. 2480 Bhoodan area 09.10
acres.

(XIX) Plot No. 2601 Bhoodan area 09.08
acres.

(XX) Plot No. 2613 Bhoodan area
22.72 acres.

(XXI) Plot No. 2674/1 Bhoodan area
08.64 acres.

(XXII) Plot No. 2675 Bhoodan area
07.50 acres.

7. Aforementioned application dated
30.12.2017 was entertained by the District
Magistrate-Varanasi, who is also the
District Deputy Director of Consolidation
by virtue of Section 4-B of U.P.C.H. Act.
The District Magistrate, Varanasi, passed
an order dated 30.12.2017 on the aforesaid
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application, whereby a report was called
for.

8. In the light of aforementioned order
dated
30.12.2017,
a
report
dated
04.09.2018
was
submitted
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation,
Varanasi. Thereafter, it was decided that the
matter be registered under Section 9 of the
U.P.C.H. Act and was referred to the
Consolidation
Officer-II
Varanasi
for
disposal. The Consolidation Officer-II,
Varanasi, however, instead of registering a
case under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act,
referred the matter to D.G.C. Revenue for
his opinion in the matter vide his letter
dated 27.09.2019. Ultimately, in the light of
the opinion given by the D.G.C. Revenue
and
the
enquiry
conducted
by
the
Consolidation Officer-II, Varanasi himself,
he opined that revenue entries in respect of
the land in dispute be expunged and the
land in dispute be re-recorded in the Banjar
Khata. In view of above, the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi, made
his report dated 18.10.2019 and in
furtherance thereof registered the complaint
dated 30.12.2017 alleged to have been filed
by the villagers referred to above, as a
reference in terms of Section 48(3) of the
U.P.C.H. Act. Accordingly, Reference No.
660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Ram Ashray
and Others), under Section 48(3) U.P.C.H.
Act, Village-Rampur, Paragna-Kolasala,
District-Varanasi came to be registered.

9. As per the report of the
Consolidation Officer on the basis of which
aforementioned reference came to be
registered, the following entries in respect
of different tenure holders were disputed;

भूिान यज्ञ किेर्ी मववरण

िाि रािपुर, परगना कोलअसला, तहसील मपण्डरा, मजला
वाराणसी

sdze
la0
vk/kkj
o"kZ
[krkSuh
[kkrk
la0
pd
la[;k
xkVk
la[;k
jdck
uke
[kkrsnkj]
firk
dk
uke] fuokl
LFkku
fo'ks"k
fooj.k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
447
932
2580/4 3.05
हररशचन्द्ि पुत्र
सिानन्द्ि
स्र्थानीय

2580/5 0.7

2580/6 0.15

2580/8 1.94

2
334
253
2674
1.56
पुनवासी,
पन्द्नालाल,
सुबेिार
पुत्रगण िौलत
व राजेन्द्र पुत्र
स्व. प्रेिचन्द्ि,
अिरनार्थ व
राज
नार्थ
पुत्रगण
रािरूप
स्र्थानीय

3
406
375
2674
0.32
छेिी प्रसाि व
रािसुन्द्िर
पुत्रगण मवरजू
व मशविनी
व
राििनी
पुत्रगण स्व०
गेिुर स्र्था०

4
404
436
2674
2.32
चुन्द्नी लाल,
राििारी
पुत्रगण
बाबूनन्द्िन व
िुन्द्नीलाल व
राििारी
पुत्रगण छािंगुर,
रयजी
िेवी
पत्नी छािंगुर
व
िुकेश,
गोकुल
व
िशरर्थ
।
पुत्रगण जोखन
व
शामन्द्त
िेवी
पत्नी
जोखनस्र्था

5
475
466
2674
2

6
550
544
2674
0.6

7
631
799
2674
0.7
पुजारी, हषा
लाल पुत्रगण

0.62
10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
819
श्यािसुन्द्िर
स्र्थीय
8
550
543
2674
0.82
रािलखन,
िक्खन,
उिराव, चुिुड
पुत्रगण राि
िेव व श्याि
सुन्द्िर
पुत्र
लुरखुर
स्र्थानीय

799
9
633
14
2674
0.18
रघुनार्थ
पुत्र
मशववरत,
गया प्रसाि,
अनन्द्त प्रसाि
व
शम्भू
नरायन
व
रािेश्याि
पुत्रगण
द्वाररका
व
श्यािा िेवी
पत्नी
शेष
नरायन
श्री
नरायन
पुत्र
विंशलोचन
मन० फूलपुर

105
797
812
699
698
10

किला
पुत्र
स्वo जवामहर
व
जगिीश
पुत्र
स्वo
राििनी,
िनोज कुिार
पुत्र
स्व0
राजिन,
भगवन्द्ती
पत्नी
स्व0
राजिन स्र्था

11
681
-
2669
7.04
catj

676
-

12
676
-
2651
1.65
बसन्द्तू
पुत्र
बमलराि,
मवजई
पुत्र
श्रीराि व सेचू
पुत्र
शोभा
स्र्था

13
35
180
2651
0.35
जवामहर पुत्र
बलवन्द्ता
शिंकर, रािे
रािा पुत्रगण
रघुनार्थ स्र्था०

753
589
789
14
681
-
2651
0.31
catj

15
447
465
2613
1.46
बैजनार्थ पुत्र
बाबू
नन्द्िन

स्र्था०
16
447
465
-
-
श्रीिान् च०
अ० िु० निं०317
/
15.11.79
िारा
12
आिेश हुआ
मक गार्ा सिं02599
/
0.10,
2613मि0 /
1.74,
420/0.92
से
भूिान
समिमत
का
नाि मनरस्त
करके
बालचन्द्ि पुत्र
िमनका मन0
रािपपुर का
नाि सीरिार
िजा हो।

17
447

465--
श्रीिान्
च०अ०
िु०निं०-
315/1511-79 को
आिेश हुआ
मक
2613/0.9
1,
420/0.93
से भूिान यज्ञ
समिमत
का
नाि मनरस्त
करके प्यारी
पत्नी द्वाररका
मन० रािपुर
का
नाि
बतौर सीरिार
िजा हो।

18
447
465
-
-
श्रीिान प००
िु०ििं०
1030
1037
मि010018
0
आिेश
हुआ
मक
गार्ा
सिं0420मन0 /
4.23
से
भूिान समिमत
से
खाररज
करके इस पर
राि मकशोर,
कैलाश
पुत्रगण श्याि
मबहारी,
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मवमपन,
मवकास
पुत्रगण
कैलाश
पावाती िेवी
पत्नी
स्व०
कैलाश नार्थ
मन0
रािपुर
का नाि िजा
हो।
18
447
465
-
-
श्रीिान
प०अ०
िु०न०202/040
381 िारा
12 आिेश
हुआ
मक
चक्र
सिं0
465
के
गार्ा
सिं0
2013 मि0
/ 1.88 से
भूिान
यज्ञ
समिमत
का
नाि खाररज
करके श्रीिती
चिेली िेवी
पत्नी भौररक
यािव रािपुर
का
लाि
असिंक्रिणीय
भूमििर िजा
मकया जाय।

20
447
465
-
-
श्रीिान्
च०अ० श्री
हीरालाल
अमन्द्ति
अमभलेख
सिर,
वाराणसी वाि
सिं0 208/
27.02.31
िारा | 12
श्रीिती
जोखनी िेवी
बनाि भूिान
समिमत
|
आिेश मिया
जाता है मक
िाि रािपुर
के गार्ा सिं0
980 मि0 /
1.70 भूिान
समिमत
के
नाि खाररज
करके श्रीिती
जोखनी पत्नी
िनई
मन०

िाि का नाि
अ०सिं०
भूमििर िजाहो
।
21
477
465
-
-
आिेशानुसार
श्रीिान्
च०अ० सिर,
वाराणसी। (श्री
भगवती
प्रसाि
श्रीवास्तव)
िु0निं0-176
/ 17-1-85
मवजय कुिार
बनाि भूिान
आिेश
।
हुआ
मक
आ० निं० -
980 मि0 /
0.38,
639मि0 /
0.52 भूिान
समिमत
का
नाि खाररज
होकर
।
िुतामवक िान
लेख प्रिाणपत्र
2-784
1)
मवजय कुिार
पुत्र
श्याि
नरायन मन०
रािपुर
का
नाि
बतौर
सीरिार िजा
मकया जाये ।

22
477
465
-
-
आिेश
च0अ0 सिर
वाराणसी पूवी
िु०निं०-
324/26.0
2.82 िारा-
12 आिेश
हुआ
मक
आ०
निं०
2599मि0 /
0.12,
2613मि0 /
0.15
से
भूिान समिमत
का
नाि
खाररज होकर
िुतामवक िान
लेख प्रिाणपत्र
मिनािंक
22.07.
81 श्रीिती
10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
821
गजराती जैजे
नोखई
का
नाि
बतौर
सीरिार िजा
मकया जावे।

10. In view of above, notices were
issued to the aggrieved persons who filed
their
objections
in
aforementioned
reference. The details of the same are as
under:-

(a) An objection dated 3.1.2020 was
filed by Vijay Kumar. Another objection
dated 8.1.2020 was filed by Kamlesh who
are petitioner nos. 1 and 3 in Writ-B No.
927 of 2020 (Vijay Kumar and Others Vs.
State of U.P), disputing the reference.

(b) An objection dated 3.1.2020 was
filed by Rambodh and Chabbu who are
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in Writ-B No. 2301
of 2021 (Rambodh and Others Vs. State of
U.P.), disputing the reference.

(c) An bjection dated 7.1.2020 was
filed by Lalman, who is petitioner no. 18
and another objection dated 8.1.2020 was
filed by Lal Chand who is petitioner No.
20, in Writ B No. 1193 of 2022 (Bechan
Vs. State of U.P. and others), disputing the
reference.

(d) An objection dated 8.1.2020 was
filed by the petitioners of Writ-B No. 612
of 2022 (Achaiber Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and others), disputing the reference.

(e) An objection dated 8.1.2020 was
filed by Kamlesh and Ramesh, Petitioner
nos. 1 and 2 in Writ-B No. 18 of 2023
(Kamlesh Yadav and others Vs. State of
U.P.), disputing the reference.

(f) An objection dated 8.1.2020 was
filed by Gaya Prasad and Others i.e.
petitioners of Writ-B No. 1788 of 2022
(Gaya Prasad Rai and others Vs. State of
U.P. and Others), disputing the reference.

(g) An objection dated 8.1.2020 was
filed by Sabir Ali, petitioner of Writ-B No.
3002 of 2022 (Mohd. Sabir Ali Vs. State of
U.P. and Others), disputing the reference.

11. Apart from the above objectors
who have filed writ petition before this
Court, various other tenure holders also
filed their objections. The details of the
same are as under:-

I. An objection was filed by Bhorik
Yadav Advocate in respect of Khatauni
Khata No.442, 462, 433.

II. An objection dated 23.12.2019 was
filed by Baliram in respect of survey Plot
No. 2601 area 090 decimal praying therein
that the revenue entry regarding the said
plot be maintained.

III. An objection dated 24.12.2019 was
filed by an objector Bhorit Yadav in respect
of Khatauni Khata No. 77 and 212,
whereby it was prayed that the revenue
entry regarding the same be maintained.

IV. An objection dated 24.12.2019 was
filed by Kanta in respect of survey plot no.
2457 area .50 decimal praying therein that
the revenue entry regarding the same be
maintained.

V. An objection dated 24.12.2019 was
filed by Baldhari Yadav in respect of
Khatauni Khata no. 615 of the basic year
Khatauni regarding survey plot no. 2613
area 0.97 decimal praying therein that the
revenue entry regarding the same be
maintained.
VI. An objection dated 03..01.2020 was
filed by Ram Dular in respect of Khatauni
Khata no. 389, of the basic year khatauni
regarding survey plot no. 1731 area 0.15
decimal praying therein that the revenue
entry regarding the same be maintained.

VII. An objection dated 03..01.2020
was filed by Ram Bodh and Chhabbu
praying therein that the revenue entry in
respect of survey plot no. 2455, area 1.1
acre occurring at page 5 and at Sl. No. 72
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the report dated 21.10.2019 submitted by
the Assistant Consolidation Officer be
maintained.

VIII. An objection dated 03.01.2020
was filed by Begraj praying therein that the
revenue entry in respect of survey plot no.
1065, area 0.65 decimal occurring at page
60 and at Sl. No. 1065 of the report dated
21.10.2019 submitted by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer be maintained.

IX. An objection dated 03.01.2020
was filed by Rajesh Yadav praying therein
that the revenue entry in respect of survey
plot no. 2474, area 1 acre occurring at page
6 and at Sl. No. 98 of the report dated
21.10.2019 submitted by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer be maintained.

X. An objection dated 03..01.2020 was
filed by Daya Ram praying therein that the
revenue entry in respect of survey plot no.
2457, area 1.04 acre occurring at page 6
and at Sl. No. 91 of the report dated
21.10.2019 submitted by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer be maintained.

XI. An objection dated 03.01.2020
was filed by Vijay Kumar praying therein
that an enquiry be conducted regarding
order dated 26.05.1952 and the final
compensation roll be summoned. Another
objection dated 03.01.2020 was filed
praying therein that the unnamed complaint
dated 30.12.2017 and the report dated
24.09.2019 and 27.09.2019 submitted by
the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the
Consolidation Officer regarding reference
be rejected.

XII. An objection dated 03.01.2020
was filed by Kashi Nath and Ram Chitar
praying therein that adequate opportunity
be granted to file objections and in case
same is not possible then, in that
eventuality Chak be allotted to the
objectors in accordance with the valuation
in
the
Chak
already
allotted.
The
amendment chart be prepared accordingly.

XII. An objection dated 04.01.2020
was filed by Mirtunjay Giri and Shiv
Shankar Tiwari praying therein that since
the father of the objectors was the vendee
of the sale deed regarding aforementioned
land therefore their land be kept intact.

XIII. An objection dated 07.01.2020
was filed by Raja Ram in respect of Basic
Year Khatauni Khata No. 452, Chak No
452, Plot No. 980 area 1 acre as occurring
at Sl No. 42 at page 4 of the list of details
of land pertaining to Bhoodan that the
revenue entry be maintained.

XIV. An objection dated 07.01.2020
was filed by Gopal in respect of Basic Year
Khatauni Khata No. 372, Chak No 344,
Plot No. 980 area 1.35 acre occurring at
page 3 and at Sl. No. 28 of the list of details
of land pertaining to Bhoodan that the
revenue entry be maintained.

XV. An objection dated 07.01.2020
was filed by Raja Ram in respect of the
land mentioned at page 4 and at Sl. No. 47
of the list of details of land pertaining to
Bhoodan that the revenue entry be
maintained.

XVI. An objection dated 07.01.2020
was filed by Doodh Nath in respect of
Basic Year Khatauni Khata No. 343, Chak
No 186, Plot No. 2613 area 2.32 acres
occurring at page 7 and at Sl. No. 121 of
the list of details of land pertaining to
Bhoodan that the revenue entry be
maintained.

XVII. An objection dated 07.01.2020
was filed by Ram Lakhan praying therein
that revenue entry in respect of the land
mentioned at page 3 and at Sl. No. 37 of
the list of details of land pertaining to
Bhoodan that the revenue entry be
maintained.

XVIII. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Akshaibar in respect of Basic
Year Khatauni Khata No. 495, Chak No 27
and Khatauni Khata No. 2601 area 0.65
10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
823
acre occurring at page 7 and at Sl. No. 106
of the list of details of land pertaining to
Bhoodan that the revenue entry be
maintained.

XIX. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Prem Singh in respect of Plot
No. 1060 area 0.19 acre occurring at page 4
and at Sl. No. 56 of the list of details of
land pertaining to Bhoodan that the revenue
entry be maintained.

XX. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Chhedi Singh in respect of
Basic Year Khatauni Khata No. 284Kha,
Plot No. 639 area 0.10 acre occurring at
page 2 and at Sl. No. 12 of the list of details
of land pertaining to Bhoodan that the
revenue entry be maintained.

XXI. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Prema Devi, Asha Devi and
Srota Devi praying therein that the revenue
entry in respect of Basic Year Khatauni
Khata No. 336, Chak No. 274, 980
occurring at page 3 and at Sl. No. 36 of the
list of details of land pertaining to Bhoodan
that the revenue entry be maintained.

XXII. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Kishori in respect of Basic
Year Khatauni Khata No. 494, Chak No.
83, Plot No. 980 area 0.10 acre occurring at
page 3 and at Sl. No. 39 of the list of details
of land pertaining to Bhoodan that the
revenue entry be maintained.

XXIII. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Sabir Ali praying therein that
unnamed complaint dated 30.12.2017 and
reports
dated
24.12.2019/27.12.2019
regarding the reference be rejected.

XXIV. An objection dated 08.01.2020
was filed by Lal Matti, Kamla and Durbal
praying therein that unnamed complaint
dated
30.12.2017
and
reports
dated
24.12.2019/27.12.2019
regarding
the
reference be rejected.

XXV. Similar objections were filed by
Lalman, Lautan, Ramesh, Kamlesh sons of
Hari Chandra, Mahgu and Danju sons of
Dallu, Panna Lal son of Bechan, Phool
Chand son of Baldev, Kamlesh and
Ramdhani sons of Sukhoo, Hari Shankar,
Shiv Shankar sons of Somaru, Lalchand
son of Budhi Ram.

12. Ultimately, respondent-1, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi
allowed aforementioned reference, vide
order dated 14.01.2020. Resultantly, the
alleged order of the Tehsildar dated
26.05.1952 was set aside. All the lands
which were previously recorded in Banjar
Khata No. 585 in the Khatauni of 1366 to
1368 Fasli were directed to be re-recorded
in the Banjar Khata. The mutation made in
favour of the affected tenure holders and
the Bhoodan Yagya Samiti were directed to
be expunged. The valuation accorded to the
tenure holders in respect of their holdings
qua the land in dispute in the light of above
was directed to be re-adjusted. The details
of the tenure holders who stand affected by
the impugned order has been detailed in the
report of the Consolidation Authorities,
copy of which is on record at page 43 of
the paper book pertaining to C.M.W.P. No.
612 of 2022 (Achhaibar Yadav Vs. State of
U.P.).

13. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the
aforesaid order dated 14.1.2020, above
mentioned writ petitions have been filed
before this Court. The individual grievance
of the petitioners in each of the writ
petitions qua the land in dispute/claimed by
them is summarized hereinunder:-

14. Writ Petition No. 1283 of 2023
has been filed by the petitioner Karpattu
Bhola Yadav challenging the order dated
14.01.2020 passed by the DDC, Varanasi,
in Reference No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha
Vs. Ramashray) claiming right title and
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interest over survey plot no. 1731 area 2.00
acres situate in village Rampur, Tehsil
Pindra,
Paragana
Kolasala,
District
Varanasi. The basis of the writ petition is
that lease was granted by the Bhoodan
Yagya
Committee
to
the
petitioner
inasmuch as, the name of the Bhoodan
Yagya Committee came to be recorded over
the land in dispute vide order dated
26.5.1952 passed by Tehsildar. The said
order has become final and the veracity of
the same cannot be examined after 68
years.

15. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 612
of 2022 has been filed by Achchaibar
Yadav along with his six sons challenging
the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the
DDC, Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of
2019
(Gaon
Sabha Vs.
Ramashray).
Petitioners have claimed right title and
interest over survey plot no. 1381 area
0.7690 acres, plot no. 1554 area 0.9910
acres, plot no. 1560 area 0.15220 acres,
plot no. 1512/1334 area 0.2230 acres, plot
no. 1382-Kha area 0.9.60 acres, survey plot
no. 1453 area 0.4050 acres situate in
Village-Rampur, Pargana-Kolasala, TehsilPindra, District-Varanasi. It is the case of
the petitioners that the land in dispute was
initially held by the Maharaja of the
Benaras (Kashi Naresh), who gifted the
same to the Bhoodan Yagya Committee.
Subsequently, the name of the Bhoodan
Yagya Committee came to be recorded in
the revenue records and thereafter, lease
was executed by the Bhoodan Yagya Samiti
in favour of the petitioners. The lease
granted to the petitioners cannot be
examined after expiry of 68 years.

16. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1828
of 2021 has been filed by Kanta (since
deceased) now represented by his widow
and five sons along with (i) Raja Ram, (ii)
Chanra, (iii) Umrai and (iv) Kamla
challenging the order dated 14.01.2020
passed by the DDC, Varanasi, in Reference
No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha Vs.
Ramashray) claiming right title and interest
over plot no. 2457 area 50 decimal and
2457/5 area 50 decimal situate in VillageRampur, Pargana-Kolasala, Tehsil-Pindra,
District-Varanasi. It is the case of the
petitioners that name of Narayan S/o Algoo
was recorded in the Khatauni of 1359 Fasli
regarding the land in dispute. After
abolition of Zamindari, the name of the
ancestors of the petitioners came to be
recorded. As such, the Gaon Sabha or the
State Government has no concern with the
land in dispute. Since the land in dispute is
the tenure of the predecessors of aforesaid
petitioners, therefore, the name of the Gaon
Sabha was never recorded over the same.
As such the petitioners cannot be deprived
of their right title and interest over the land
in dispute on the erroneous assumption that
the land in dispute was recorded in the
Banjar Khata previously.

17. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2301
of 2021 has been filed by Rambodh along
with eleven others challenging the order
dated 14.01.2020 passed by the DDC,
Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of 2019
(Gaon Sabha Vs. Ramashray). Petitioners
are claiming right title and interest over
survey plot no. 2455 area 1.01 airs and 0.6
airs and survey Plot No. 2613, area 0.32
and 1/2 airs and 0.5213 airs situate in
Village-Rampur, Pargana-Kolasala, TehsilPindra, District-Varanasi. The basis of the
writ petition is that lease deed was executed
by the Bhoodan Yagya Committee in
favour of the predecessors in interest of the
petitioners on 06.01.1956. Thereafter, the
name of the petitioners was mutated in the
revenue records. The veracity of the lease
so granted in favour of the petitioners by
10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
825
the Bhoodan Yagya Committee cannot be
examined in the consolidation proceedings
and that to after 68 years.

18. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 927
of 2020 has been filed by Vijay Kumar
along with 5 others challenging the order
dated 14.01.2020 passed by the DDC,
Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of 2019
(Gaon
Sabha
Vs.
Ramashray).
The
petitioners therein have claimed their right
title and interest in the following manner;-

Regarding petitioner no. 1, the claim is
over Survey Plot No. 1060 area 4.00 acres.

Regarding petitioner no. 2, the claim is
over Survey Plot No. 2442/4 area 1.32
acres and Survey Plot No. 2613 area 2.32
acres.

Regarding petitioner no. 3, the claim is
over Survey Plot No. 2601 area 2.24 acres,

Regarding petitioner no. 4, the claim is
over Survey Plot No. 2613 area 0.91 acre,
Survey Plot No. 420 area 0.93 acre, Survey
Plot No. 2631/1 area 0.64 acre and Survey
Plot No. 2613/1 area 0.65 acres.

Regarding petitioner no. 5, the claim is
over Survey Plot No. 2613 area 0.71 acres,
Survey Plot No. 2651/2 area 0.35 acres.

Regarding petitioner no. 6, the claim is
over Survey Plot No. 2674 area 0.32 acres,
2457 area 0.60 acres situate in VillageRampur, Pargana-Kolasala, Tehsil-Pindra,
District-Varanasi.
According
to
the
petitioners, land in dispute initially belong
to the Maharaja of Benaras (Kashi Naresh)
who gifted the same to Bhoodan Yagya
Committee. Accordingly, the name of the
Bhoodan Yagya Committee came to be
mutated in the revenue records, vide order
dated 26.05.1952. Thereafter, the Bhoodan
Yagya Committee executed lease in favour
of various persons including petitioners.
The lease was executed in favour of the
petitioners on 06.01.1956. Subsequently,
the name of the petitioners came to be
recorded over the land in dispute in the
revenue records. The said orders have
become final and now cannot be examined.

19. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1193
of 2022 has been filed by Bechan Ram
along with 19 others challenging the order
dated 14.01.2020 passed by the DDC,
Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of 2019
(Gaon Sabha Vs. Ramashray). Petitioners
have claimed their right title and interest in
the following manner;-

Petitioners No. 1 to 6 have claimed
their right over Survey Plot No. 1167 area
1.90 acres,

Petitioners No. 7 to 14 have claimed
their right over Survey Plot No. 1167 area
1.62 acres,

Petitioner No. 15 has claimed his right
over Survey Plot No. 0.86 acres,

Petitioners No. 16 and 17 have
claimed their right over Survey Plot No.
1167 area 1.62 acres,

Petitioner No. 18 has claimed his right
over Survey Plot No. 2613 area 1.91 acres,

Petitioners No. 19 and 20 have
claimed their right over Survey Plot No.
2418 area 0.65 acres and Survey Plot No.
2457 area 0.66 acres situate in VillageRampur, Pargana-Kolasala, Tehsil-Pindra,
District-Varanasi.
According
to
the
petitioners, lease was executed by the
Bhoodan Yagya Committee in favour of the
predecessors
of
the
petitioners
on
06.01.1956. Subsequent to above, the
names of the predecessors in interest of the
petitioners came to be recorded over the
land in dispute. The predecessors in interest
of the petitioners are in possession over the
land
in
dispute
since
then.
The
Consolidation
Authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to cancel the lease granted in
favour of the predecessors in interest of the
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners nor the veracity of the said lease
can be examined after expiry of 68 years.

20. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1788
of 2022 has been filed by Gaya Prasad Rai
along with 5 others challenging the order
dated 14.01.2020 passed by the DDC,
Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of 2019
(Gaon Sabha Vs. Ramashray). Petitioners
are claiming their right title and interest
over Survey Plot No. 1167 new No. 920 Ta,
area 0.23 acres situate in Village-Rampur,
Pargana-Kolasala, Tehsil-Pindra, DistrictVaranasi. The claim of the petitioners is
that the land in dispute never belong to the
Gaon Sabha or the Bhoodan Yagya
Committee. The name of the petitioners are
recorded over the land in dispute in the
Khatauni of 1427 to 1432 Fasli. The
petitioners are in possession over the same.
The name of the petitioners which stands
recorded over the land in dispute for the
last 68 years cannot be set aside abruptly.

21. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1092
of 2020 has been filed by Radhey Shyam
along with 4 others challenging the order
dated 14.01.2020 passed by the DDC,
Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of 2019
(Gaon Sabha Vs. Ramashray). Petitioners
are claiming their right title and interest
over Survey Plot No. 2675 situate in
Village-Rampur, Pargana-Kolasala, TehsilPindra, District-Varanasi. It is the case of
the petitioners that lease was granted in
favour of the father of the petitioners by the
Bhoodan Yagya Committee. Pursuant to the
said lease, the name of the father of the
petitioners namely - Ayodhya Prasad came
to
be
recorded
as
Sirdar.
During
Consolidation Operations, petitioners were
alloted Chak No. 7 and a separate Khatauni
Khata being Khatauni Khata No. 205 was
also allotted. Proceedings under Section
9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act were initiated by one
Basantu, who claimed his right over Survey
Plot No. 2675 area 3 acres on the basis of
lease granted by the Bhoodan Yagya
Samiti. Claim of Basantu was negated by
the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated
16.08.1975. Feeling aggrieved by above
order dated 16.08.1975, Bansatu preferred
an appeal before Settlement Officer of
Consolidation which also came to be
dismssed, vide order dated 02.08.1977.
Feeling aggrieved by above orders dated
16.08.1975 and 02.08.1977, Basantu has
filed C.M.W.P. No. 8795 of 1981 (Basantu
Vs. DDC and Others), wherein an interim
order dated 30.08.1984 has been passed by
this Court and the Writ Petition is pending.
According to the petitioners, they are
lessees of the Bhoodan Yagya Committee.
The claim of the petitioners cannot be
examined
after
70
years
nor
the
consolidation courts have any jurisdiction
to decide the validity of the lease granted
by the Bhoodan Yagya Committee, by
virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 15A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagya
Act.

22. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 316
of 2023 has been filed by Munra
challenging the order dated 14.01.2020
passed by the DDC, Varanasi, in Reference
No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha Vs.
Ramashray). Petitioner has claimed his
right title and interest over Survey Plot No.
2601 area 2.24 acres situate in Village
Rampur, Pargana-Kolasal, Tehsil-Pindra,
District
Varanasi.
According
to
the
petitioner, one Khaderu was the Bhumidhar
of aformentioned plot no. 2601 area 2.24
acres. Khaderu, the recorded tenure holder
during his life time executed a registered
will dated 22.06.1990 in favour of
petitioner. After the death of Khaderu, the
name of petitioner came to be mutated in
the revenue records regarding the land in
10 All. Achchaibar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
827
dispute on the basis of aforementioned
registered will. Initially lease was granted
by the Bhoodan Yagya Samiti on the basis
of which, the names of predecessors in
interest of petitioner came to be recorded.
The veracity of the lease so granted cannot
be examined after expiry of a long period
of 71 years. Moreover, the Consolidation
Courts have no jurisdiction to consider the
veracity of the lease granted by the
Bhoodan Yagya Committee.

23. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 249
of 2023 has been filed by Tilakdhari
alongwith Buddhi Ram challenging the
order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the DDC,
Varanasi, in Reference No. 660 of 2019
(Gaon Sabha Vs. Ramashray). Petitioners
have claimed their right title and interest
over Survey Plot No. 2474/2 area 1 acre
situate in Village Rampur, Pargana-Kolasal,
Tehsil-Pindra, District Varanasi. According
to the petitioners, the title of the petitioners
over the land in dispute cannot be
examined after 68 years. No objection
was filed by the Gaon Sabha claiming
right title and interest over the land in
dispute, as such, Chaks were carved out
in
favour
of
petitioners
in
the
consolidation proceedings. The same
cannot be undone simply on the basis of
an application.

24. Civil Misc. Writ petition No.
33 of 2023 has been filed by Hari Nath
challenging the order dated 14.01.2020
passed by the DDC, Varanasi, in
Reference No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon
Sabha Vs. Ramashray). Petitioner is
claiming his right title and interest over
survey plot no. 2442 area 0.24 acres situate
in
Village
Rampur,
Pargana-Kolasal,
Tehsil-Pindra, District Varanasi. According
to petitioner, the land in dispute initially
belonged to the Maharaja of Benaras
(Kashi Naresh), who gifted the land in
dispute to the Bhoodan Yagya Committee.
Subsequently, name of the Bhoodan Yagya
Committee came to be registered in the
revenue record. Subsequently Bhoodan
Yagya Committee executed a lease deed
dated 06.01.1956 in favour of petitioner.
On the basis of above, the name of
petitioner came to be recorded in the
revenue record. The validity of the lease so
granted could not be examined after such a
long period nor the Consolidation Courts
have any jurisdiction to examine the
correctness of the lease so granted in favour
of petitioner.

25. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 21 of
2023 has been filed by Sachanu Yadav
alongwith Baba Yadav, Jhalara Devi,
Jangali Prasad Yadav and Subhash Yadav
challenging the order dated 14.01.2020
passed by the DDC, Varanasi, in Reference
No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha Vs.
Ramashray). Petitioners 1 to 4 have
claimed their right title and interest over
survey plot no. 2455 area 1 acre, whereas
petitioner-5 has claimed his right title and
interest over survey plot no. 2455 area 1
acre situate at Village Rampur DistrictVaranasi. According to petitioners, lease
was granted by the Bhoodan Yagya
Committee in their favour inasmuch as, the
name of the Bhoodan Yagya Committee
had already been recorded in the revenue
records, vide order dated 26.05.1952. The
said order of the Tehsildar has become final
for want of challenge. Thereafter, lease was
granted regarding the land in dispute in
favour of petitioners on 06.01.1956 by the
Bhoodan Yagya Committee. The veracity
of the said lease cannot be examined after
such a long period and that to by the
consolidation courts as they have no
jurisdiction
to
adjudicate
upon
the
correctness of the lease.
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 20 of
2023 has been filed by petitoner Lalchand
Yadav
challenging
the
order
dated
14.01.2020 passed by the DDC, Varanasi,
in Reference No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha
Vs. Ramashray). Petitioner is claiming his
right, title and interest over survey plot no.
2442 area 0.90, Survey Plot No. 2613 area
1.67 acres, Survey Plot No. 2480 area 0.40
acres and Survey Plot No. 2081 area 3.49
acres situate in Village Rampur, ParganaKolasal, Tehsil-Pindra, District Varanasi.
According to petitioner, the land in dispute
came to be recorded in the name of
Bhoodan Yagya Committee, vide order
dated 26.05.1952 passed by the Tehsildar,
Varanasi. Subsequently, the Bhoodan Yagya
Committee executed lease in favour of the
petitioner
and
other
co-sharer
on
14.11.1959. The veracity of the above
cannot be examined after such a long
period nor the consolidation courts have
any jurisdiction to examine the correctness
of the said lease.

27. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 18 of
2023 has been filed by petitioners Kamlesh
Yadav, Ramesh Yadav and Rakesh Yadav
challenging the order dated 14.01.2020
passed by the DDC, Varanasi, in Reference
No. 660 of 2019 (Gaon Sabha Vs.
Ramashray).