# Akhil Kumar Agarwal v. D.D.C., Jalaun at Orai & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1086
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-28
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 209 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhil-kumar-agarwal-v-d-d-c-jalaun-at-orai-ors-47362
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act (5 of 1954) - Sections 48,12 & 9A(2) -
Revision
against
rejection
of
delay
condonation
application
-
Scope
of
Interference
-
Revisional
court
not
justified in travelling beyond the scope
and merits of order, what is challenged
before him.

S.O.C. simply dismissed the appeal on the
ground of laches, without applying his mind to
the merits of case - Challenge in revision was
limited
qua merits
of delay condonation
application - However D.D.C. entered into
merits of case & gave finding qua genuineness
of claim of one of the parties - Held - D.D.C.
ought to have only discussed the sufficiency of
grounds for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal - Grounds of condoning the delay, in
case, found sufficient by D.D.C., he should have
remitted the matter before the S.O.C. to decide
the appeal on merits - D.D.C. exceeded its
jurisdiction in remitting the matter before the
C.O. to decide the objection afresh, without
examining the legality and correctness of
dismissal of appeal being barred by time -
Merits of right and title of the parties was not in
question before him therefore, he should not
have responded in this regard (Para 11, 12)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Tirath Vs Joint Director of Consolidation & ors.
1985 RD 276

## Text

1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

40. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that once
this Court on 06.8.2021 took cognizance in
the matter and directed the Standing
Counsel to seek instructions in the matter,
no question arises for relegating the matter
under Section 210 of the Code on the
ground of alternative remedy.

41. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, I find that
no case for interference has been made out
by the petitioner-Trust as the transfer of
land by the Trust is hit by Section 157-A of
Act, 1950 and further the conditions of the
permission granted by the State on
7.11.2005 had been violated, which had
required the institution to strictly follow the
same and any contravention would lead to
the land vesting in the State Government
except 12.5 acres.

42. No interference is required in the
order impugned dated 16.01.2021 and
report dated 16.03.2020 submitted by SubDivisional Magistrate, Rampur.

43. Writ petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1086
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 209 of 2021

Akhil Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C., Jalaun at Orai & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri
Rituvendra
Singh
Nagvanshi,
Sri
Narayan Dutt Shukla, Sri R.C. Singh Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Chaudhary Subash Kumar , Sri
Rudreshwari Prasad

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act (5 of 1954) - Sections 48,12 & 9A(2) -
Revision
against
rejection
of
delay
condonation
application
-
Scope
of
Interference
-
Revisional
court
not
justified in travelling beyond the scope
and merits of order, what is challenged
before him.

S.O.C. simply dismissed the appeal on the
ground of laches, without applying his mind to
the merits of case - Challenge in revision was
limited
qua merits
of delay condonation
application - However D.D.C. entered into
merits of case & gave finding qua genuineness
of claim of one of the parties - Held - D.D.C.
ought to have only discussed the sufficiency of
grounds for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal - Grounds of condoning the delay, in
case, found sufficient by D.D.C., he should have
remitted the matter before the S.O.C. to decide
the appeal on merits - D.D.C. exceeded its
jurisdiction in remitting the matter before the
C.O. to decide the objection afresh, without
examining the legality and correctness of
dismissal of appeal being barred by time -
Merits of right and title of the parties was not in
question before him therefore, he should not
have responded in this regard (Para 11, 12)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Tirath Vs Joint Director of Consolidation & ors.
1985 RD 276

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt
Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner,
9 All Akhil Kumar Agarwal Vs. D.D.C., Jalaun at Orai & Ors.
1087
Sri Rudreshwari Prasad and Sri Chaudhary
Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 and learned
Standing Counsel representing respondent
no.1 and perused the record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the order
proposed to be passed hereinunder as well
as with the consent of the parties, this Court
proceeded to finally decide this matter at
the admission stage, without calling for
their respective affidavits, i.e. counter
affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, with
liberty to the contesting respondents to
move a recall application, in case, any fact
is found incorrect.

3. Under challenge in the present writ
petition
is
order
dated
30.10.2020
(Annexure-18) passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation (in brevity
''D.D.C.') (respondent no.1) in Revision
No.2019530633000004
(Jagram
vs.
Balram) under Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in
brevity ''U.P.C.H. Act').

4. Present writ petition is arising out
of a proceeding under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act. Land in dispute was
recorded in the name of Balle, who died on
14.02.1978. Smt. Bhura wife of Balle has
moved an application dated 05.04.1978
(Annexure-3) for recording name of her
son Balram (respondent no.3) in place of
recorded tenure holder, Balle. Aforesaid
application moved by Smt. Bhura (mother
of respondent no.3) was allowed vide order
dated 26.07.1978 (Annexure-4) passed by
Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.')
directing to record the name of Balram
(respondent no.3) under the guardianship of
his mother Smt. Bhura alias Badi Bahu. At
a belated stage, Jagram (predecessor in
interest of respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2) have
filed
an
appeal
dated
26.07.1994
(Annexure-6) before the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation (in brevity ''S.O.C.') on
the ground that he is also one of the son of
recorded tenure holder Balle, but his
mother has deliberately ignored him in
mutating his name in the Revenue Record
along with his brother Balram in place of
his deceased father. Aforesaid appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1998
(Annexure-7) on the ground of laches.
Feeling aggrieved, Jagram has preferred
revision before respondent no.1, who has
dismissed the same vide its order dated
12.02.2019
(Annexure-16).
Respondent
nos.2/1
and
2/2
(heirs
and
legal
representatives of Jagram) have filed a writ
petition before this Hon'ble Court against
the order dated 12.02.2019, which was
registered as Writ B no.950 of 2019 (Ramu
Kushwaha and another vs. Balram and
others).
Aforesaid
writ
petition
was
allowed vide order dated 30.05.2019
(Annexure-17) remitting the matter back
before respondent no.1 to decide the
revision afresh. After remand, respondent
no.1 has allowed the revision vide order
dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-18), which is
under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Present petitioner is claiming his
right and title over the property in question
being a bonafide purchaser from Balram
(respondent no.3) who has executed the
registered sale deed in favour of present
petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid sale
deed, mutation order dated 22.02.1989 was
passed in favour of petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent no.1 has illegally
allowed the revision and remitted the
matter before the ''C.O.' for deciding it
afresh, whereas the limited question was
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involved in the revision with respect to the
merits of delay condonation application,
which was rejected by the S.O.C. It is
further submitted that respondent no.1 has
illegally entered into the merits of the case
and accidentally given some observation
with respect to genuineness of Jagram,
being son of Balle which can affect the
merits of the case before the C.O. It is
further submitted that Notification under
section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act was
promulgated on 10.02.1973 with respect to
the aforesaid land in question and the same
was denotified under section 52 of the
U.P.C.H. Act on 07.06.1980. During this
period, name of respondent no.3 (vendor of
petitioner) was recorded in the Revenue
Record, who had executed the registered
sale deed after denotification and, on the
basis thereof, mutation order was passed in
favour of present petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
contesting respondent nos.2/1 and 2/2 has
contended that respondent no.1 has rightly
allowed the revision remitting the matter
before the C.O. to decide right and title of
the parties afresh. Claim of Jagram, on the
basis of succession being son of recorded
tenure holder Balle, has illegally been
discarded by the C.O. and affirmed by the
S.O.C. Dismissing the appeal on the ground
of laches, the S.O.C. was influenced with
several litigation which were going on
between the parties before Civil Court and
Revenue Court, whereas legal right of
Jagram being son of Balle has never been
adjudicated upon at any stage of litigation
before any competent court. He has further
contended that opportunity is still open to
the parties to get their right and title
decided before the court competent in
pursuance of impugned order passed by
respondent no.1. There is no illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the
respondent no.1 to be interfered by this
Hon'ble Court.

8. Perused the record on board and
considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties.

9. From the record it emerges that the
dispute arose with respect to the property
belonging to one Balle. At an initial stage,
respondent no.3 has got his name recorded
in revenue record in place of Balle, being
his
only
son.
Subsequently,
Jagram
(predecessor in the interest of respondent
nos.2/1 and 2/2) while came to know about
the aforesaid fact, has filed an appeal
claiming his right and title over the
property in question, being second son of
Balle. He came up with a case that, in fact,
Balle had two sons namely, Balram and
Jagram. Under mischievous play, his
mother has got the name of respondent no.3
only, recorded in the Revenue Record and
left the name of Jagram, to be recorded for
the reasons best known to her.

10. The limited question, which arose
for consideration before this Court is, as to
whether respondent no.1 is justified in
remitting the matter before the C.O. after
considering the merits of the original case
with respect to the genuineness of claim
made by Jagram, whereas the S.O.C. has
examined only merits of application for
condonation of delay.

11. Order passed by the S.O.C. clearly
reveals that he has not applied his mind
with respect to the merits of the right and
title of the parties. It has simply dismissed
the appeal on the ground of laches. No
sufficient ground was found by the S.O.C.
for condoning delay in filing the appeal.
Challenge in revision was limited qua
merits of delay condonation application.
9 All Akhil Kumar Agarwal Vs. D.D.C., Jalaun at Orai & Ors.
1089
Respondent no.1, ought have discussed the
sufficiency of grounds for condoning the
delay in filing the appeal but, accidentally,
he has given finding qua genuineness of
Jagram, justifying his claim, being son of
Balle. Record reveals that validity and
genuineness of the claim of Jagram was not
in
question
before
respondent
no.1,
inasmuch as, same has not been scrutinized
by the S.O.C. in its order dated 07.10.1988,
which was challenged in revision before
respondent no.1. Grounds of condoning the
delay,
in
case,
found
sufficient
by
respondent no.1, he should have remitted
the matter before the S.O.C. to decide the
appeal on merits.

12. In my opinion, respondent no.1
has exceeded its jurisdiction in remitting
the matter before the C.O. to decide the
objection under Section 9 A(2) of the
U.P.C.H. Act afresh, without examining the
legality and correctness of dismissal of
appeal being barred by time. Respondent
no.1 is not justified in travelling beyond the
scope and merits of order, what has been
challenged before him. Merits of right and
title of the parties was not in question
before respondent no.1, therefore, he
should not have responded in this regard.

13. In the matter of Tirath vs. Joint
Director of Consolidation and other reported
in 1985 RD 276, a Divison Bench of this
Court has expounded that appeal, in case,
dismissed being barred by limitation, revision
petition cannot be allowed on merits without
examining the legality and correctness of
order under challenge. In the aforesaid cited
case, following question was referred for
determination :

"whether the revisional authority
under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act can allow revision petition
without indicating whether the appeal filed
by the applicant in revision having been
dismissed on the ground of limitation was
illegally, incorrectly and improperly decided
or the appellant had sufficient cause for
condonation of delay in preferring the
appeal."

14. Aforesaid question was replied in
negative by Division Bench of this Court,
which is reproduced below:

"We venture to think that the
proper course for the Revisional Authority
would have been to interfere with the order of
the Appellate Authority- set aside the order of
the dismissal of the appeal (as time barred)
and in directing the Appellate Authority to
decide the appeal on the merits, instead of
doing so himself. The Appellate Authority,
after hearing the parties, could very well pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
In case the order passed by the Consolidation
Officer called for any interference it would be
open to the Appellate Authority to do so. In
case the appeal was rejected on the merits
the Revisional Authority could examine the
record to see if it should exercise its power
under Section 48(1) of the Act."

15. In this conspectus, as above, I am
fully satisfied that the subject matter of
revision, challenging the order of the
S.O.C. was limited up to the merits of delay
condonation application. Respondent no.1
has exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing
the merits of original case and remitting the
matter before the C.O. to examine the right
and title of the parties afresh. Order dated
30.12.2020
(Annexure-18)
passed
by
respondent no.1 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law, to that extent.

16. Resultly, present writ petition is
partly allowed and the order dated
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.12.2020 passed by the respondent no.1
is modified to the extent that matter is
remitted before the S.O.C. for deciding the
appeal, filed before him by Jagram, on its
own merits. Benefit given by respondent
no.1 under section 5 of Limitation Act,
1963 by condoning the delay in filing the
appeal is, accordingly, affirmed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1090
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Consolidation No. 359 of 1998

Sant Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Faizabad ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.K.Mehrotra, Balram Yadava, G.S.L. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Manzer Ali, Mayank Pandey, Shikha
Sinha

Civil Law - Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987 - Section 20 - in Lok Adalat
matter can be decided only with the
compromise or settlement between the
parties - in absence of any compromise
or settlement between parties matter
cannot be decided on merits - if no
settlement takes place in Lok Adalat
then the matter should be sent to the
court concerned, for decision

In Lok Adalat matter was heard by Deputy
Director of Consolidation - No compromise or
settlement was arrived at by the petitioner
with the opposite party - Held - D.D.C.
exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the
revision on merits in Lok Adalat (Para 22)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited :

1. St. of Pun. & ors. Vs Mohinderjit Kaur (2005)
2 SCC 743

2. U.O.I. Vs Ananto (Dead) & anr.(2007) 10 SCC
748

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Balram Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for
opposite party no. 1 and Ms. Shikha Sinha,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1.

2. The writ petition has been filed
with the following main reliefs:-

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 20.05.1998 vide
annexure no. 6 passed by the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Faizabad
holding the Lok Adalat at Kuchera Bazar in
District Faizabad illegally modifying the
chak of the petitioner;

(b) issue any other appropriate
writ, direction or order as may seem to be
expedient in the ends of justice."

3. By the order dated 16.07.1998,
notices were issued to the opposite party
no. 2 and it was provided that in the
meantime, the operation of the order dated
20.05.1998 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Faizabad shall remain
stayed and the possession of the petitioner
over half of the plot no. 555/1 shall not be
disturbed in pursuance of the said order.

4. By the order dated 08.09.2021, the
learned Standing Counsel was directed to
inform the Court on the basis of record as
to whether (i) the revision was heard on
17.05.1998
in
Lok
Adalat;
(ii)What