# Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 537
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 371 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alakh-prasad-alakh-dev-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54633
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 5, 12, 11(1) & 48 -
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 157-A -
Jurisdiction of consolidation authorities -
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Title over Abadi land - Scope of revisional
power - Plot No. 17 recorded in name of
Raghuni, was permitted to be transferred
under S.5, U.P.C.H. Act. Raghuni executed
sale
deed
in
favour
of
petitioners.
Petitioners application under S.12 for
recording their names was rejected by
Consolidation Officer directing plot be
recorded as Abadi Class 6(2). On appeal,
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
allowed petitioners' claim, but in revision
under
S.48,
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation set aside the appellate order
holding sale deed void being hit by S.157A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and restored order
of
Consolidation
Officer.
Held
:
Consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to decide title of Abadi land.
Their jurisdiction is limited to recording
the nature of land as "Abadi" in revenue
records; questions of title must be left to
competent Civil Court Deputy Director of
Consolidation
exceeded
revisional
jurisdiction in adjudicating validity of sale
deed
and
title
of
petitioners, as
consolidation court cannot decide title
about the abadi land. Court quashed the
revisional order recording finding on sale
deed and title. Order of Consolidation
Officer declaring plot as Abadi Class 6(2)
affirmed. Parties given liberty to approach
Civil Court for adjudication of title. Writ
petition partly allowed.

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

5 All. Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
available. For example, where a rule
specifically provides that the delinquent
officer shall be given an opportunity to
produce evidence in support of his case
after the close of the evidence of the other
side and if no such opportunity is given, it
would not be possible to say that the
enquiry was not vitiated. But in respect of
many procedural provisions, it would be
possible to apply the theory of substantial
compliance or the test of prejudice, as the
case may be. Even amongst procedural
provisions, there may be some provisions of
a fundamental nature which have to be
complied with and in whose case the theory
of substantial compliance may not be
available, but the question of prejudice may
be material. In respect of procedural
provisions other than of a fundamental
nature,
the
theory
of
substantial
compliance would be available and in such
cases objections on this score have to be
judged on the touchstone of prejudice. The
test would be, whether the delinquent
officer had or did not have a fair hearing.
..."
(Emphasis supplied)"

12. In the above background, the
Court takes note that in writ petition, the
petitioner has not denied his absence of
1220 days even vaguely. No document
such as sanction of leave or application for
leave or medical certificate was placed on
record, therefore, the Court is of view that
since there was substantial compliance of
principle of natural justice that she was
given opportunity to submit her reply,
however, no reply was submitted despite
publication in newspaper, she has not
appeared, therefore, the Court takes note
that even this matter is remitted back to
conduct the inquiry from the stage where
procedure was not strictly followed would
have no effect since petitioner has no
explanation to her long absence of 1220
days, therefore, there is no prejudice caused
to her. Petitioner's case has failed in 'test of
prejudice'. It will also not be in the interest
of justice since in present case, in the writ
petition, petitioner has not made even a
statement of denial of charge. No document
was placed on record which could support
her defence or contradict the allegations.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances,
since the Court is of view that absence of
1220 days, between 2004 to 2009 remained
absolutely unexplained, therefore, there is
no need to interfere with punishment which
is not disproportionate, considering the
nature of allegation, this writ petition is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 537
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 371 of 2025

Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Narayan Dutt Shukla, Rituvendra Singh
Nagvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Murli Dhar Mishra, Sachinda Nand Tiwari,
Anuj Srivastava, C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 5, 12, 11(1) & 48 -
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 157-A -
Jurisdiction of consolidation authorities -
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Title over Abadi land - Scope of revisional
power - Plot No. 17 recorded in name of
Raghuni, was permitted to be transferred
under S.5, U.P.C.H. Act. Raghuni executed
sale
deed
in
favour
of
petitioners.
Petitioners application under S.12 for
recording their names was rejected by
Consolidation Officer directing plot be
recorded as Abadi Class 6(2). On appeal,
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
allowed petitioners' claim, but in revision
under
S.48,
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation set aside the appellate order
holding sale deed void being hit by S.157A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and restored order
of
Consolidation
Officer.
Held
:
Consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to decide title of Abadi land.
Their jurisdiction is limited to recording
the nature of land as "Abadi" in revenue
records; questions of title must be left to
competent Civil Court Deputy Director of
Consolidation
exceeded
revisional
jurisdiction in adjudicating validity of sale
deed
and
title
of
petitioners, as
consolidation court cannot decide title
about the abadi land. Court quashed the
revisional order recording finding on sale
deed and title. Order of Consolidation
Officer declaring plot as Abadi Class 6(2)
affirmed. Parties given liberty to approach
Civil Court for adjudication of title. Writ
petition partly allowed.

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Narayan
Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Murli Dhar Mishra, learned
counsel assisted by Mr. Sachida Nand
Tiwari, learned counsel for the private
respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
plot No. 17 area 10 dismil situated in
Village Jabhi Malki Mustakil, Tappa- Bak
Jogni
Tehsil-
Tamkuhiraj
District
Kushinagar was recorded in the name of
Shri Raghuni son of Palakh. Shri Raghuni
made an application before the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation under Section 5 of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act
seeking permission to transfer the plot No.
17 area 10 dismil. Settlement Officer of
Consolidation vide order dated 12.3.1981
granted permission to Shri Raghuni to
transfer the property. On the basis of
permission granted by Settlement Officer
of Consolidation dated 12.3.1981, Shri
Raghuni executed a registered sale deed
dated 29.7.1981 in favour of Alakh Prasad,
Janak Prasad and Nagina Prasad who are
petitioners
of
the
instant
petition.
Petitioners- Alakh Prasad, Janak Prasad
and Nagina Prasad applied for recording of
their name under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of registered sale
deed
dated
29.7.1981.
In
the
aforementioned proceeding, an objection
was filed on behalf of respondent no.4/
Narsingh claiming right on the basis of
adverse possession. Consolidation Officer
vide order dated 26.6.1982 rejected the
application filed by petitioners under
Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act as well as
the objection filed by respondent no.4/
Narsingh and directed that plot in question
should be recorded as abadi Class 6 (2).
Petitioners
challenged
the
order
of
Consolidation Officer dated 26.6.1982 by
way of appeal under Section 11(1) of the
U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as
appeal No. 2305, Alakh Prasad and Others
Vs. Raghuni and Others. Respondent no.4/
Narsingh has also filed appeal before the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation which
was registered as appeal No. 2550 Narsingh
Vs. Gaon Sabha. Both the appeals were
consolidated and heard together. Settlement
5 All. Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
Officer of Consolidation vide order dated
25.10.1982 allowed the appeal filed by
petitioners and dismissed the appeal filed
by respondent no.4/ Narsingh. Against the
appellate
order
dated
21.10.1982,
respondent no.4 filed revision under
Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act against the
appellate order dated 21.10.1982 passed in
appeal No. 2035 and appeal No. 2550. The
aforementioned revision was registered as
case No. 0883 of 2018. Deputy Director of
Consolidation vide order dated 7.1.2025
allowed the revision filed by respondent
no.4 setting aside the appellate order dated
21.10.1982 and maintained the order of
Consolidation Officer dated 26.6.1982 by
which the plot in question was ordered to
be recorded as abadi Class 6 (2). Hence this
writ petition for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari call for record
and quash the impugned order dated
7.1.2025 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation Kushinagar in case No.
0883
of
2018,
computerized
No.
2018540544000000883 and order dated
26.6.1982
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer,
Tarya
Sujan,
District
Kushinagar."

3. This Court entertained the matter
on
13.2.2025
and
granted
interim
protection for maintaining status quo
regarding possession, nature and character
of the suit property.

4. In compliance of the order dated
13.2.2025, parties have exchanged their
affidavit.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that petitioners have
rightly applied under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act for recording of their name
on the basis of registered sale deed dated
29.7.1981 but Consolidation Officer has
illegally rejected the claim of petitioners
and directed that plot in question be
recorded as abadi Class 6 (2). He submitted
that appeal filed by petitioners was rightly
allowed
by
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation for recording of the name of
petitioners on the basis of registered sale
deed executed by recorded tenure holder of
the plot in question. He further submitted
that
in
the
revisional
exercise
of
jurisdiction,
the
appellate
order
has
illegally been set aside and the order of
Consolidation Officer has been maintained.
He submitted that after execution of sale
deed dated 29.7.1981 by Raghuni in favour
of petitioners, Raghuni lost his right in
respect to the plot in question therefore
Raghuni cannot enter into compromise with
regard to the plot in question in any
proceeding. He further submitted that in
obtaining expert opinion, consolidation
authorities have violated the mandatory
provisions, as such, no reliance can be
placed over the expert opinion. He
submitted that civil suit filed on behalf of
respondent no.4 was not maintainable as
respondent no.4 was not recorded over the
plot in question. He further submitted that
petitioners were not party in the civil suit,
as such, decree if any will not be binding
upon the petitioners. He submitted that
compromise was alleged to take place in
civil suit filed by respondent no.4 but entire
proceeding of the suit filed by respondent
no.4 is vitiated as civil suit was not
maintainable
before
Civil
Court.
He
submitted that Consolidation Officer has no
power to record the bhoomidhari land as
abadi. He submitted that respondent no.4
was claiming right on the basis of adverse
possession which has not been proved in
accordance with law, as such, no right will
accrue in favour of private respondents. He
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted that finding recorded by the
revisional Court regarding the provisions
contained under Section 157-A of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is wholly illegal. He
submitted that impugned revisional order
passed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation is liable to be set aside and
order
of
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation should be maintained. He
further placed reliance upon the following
judgements in support of his argument:-

"(i) 2017 (1) JCLR 743 (ALL)
Satya Prakash Goel Vs. Smt. Kavita Jain

(ii) Civil Appeal No. 2639 of
1982 Asharfi Lal Vs. Smt. Koili (dead) by
L.R.s

(iii) Civil Appeal No. 2771 of
1981 Smt. Isabella Johnson Vs. M.A.
Susai (dead) by Lrs.

(iv) 1993 (2) SCC 458 Hiralal
Moolchand Doshi Vs. Barot Raman Lal
Ranchhoddas (dead) by L.Rs

(v) 2022 AIR Supreme Court
3967 S. Kuldeep Singh and Another Vs. S.
Prithpal Singh

(vi) 2018 SCC Online SC 2170
Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs.
Didar Singh and Another (vii) 2017 (3)
SCC 740 Mohammad Ansari Vs. Union of
India and Others"

6. On the other hand, Mr. Murli
Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for private
respondents submitted that sale deed set up
by the petitioners is hit by Section 157-A of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He submitted
that Civil Court has got jurisdiction to grant
injunction under Section 38 of Specific
Relief Act, as such, civil suit filed by
respondent no.4 was maintainable before
the Civil Court. He submitted that in the
civil suit, the compromise has taken place
in respect to the plot in question, as such,
the petitioners have no right and title in
respect to the plot in question. He
submitted that consolidation authorities
have power to declare the plot as abadi and
there is no illegality in the order of
Consolidation Officer to record the plot in
question as abadi. He submitted that
execution of the sale deed has been denied
by the Raghuni himself, as such, no right
will accrue in favour of petitioners. He
further submitted that original copy of the
sale deed was not produced before any
Court, as such, the petitioners cannot be
recorded over the plot in question on the
basis of alleged sale deed. He submitted
that land in question is abadi and the
possession of respondent no.4 has not been
denied by recorded owner Raghuni, as
such, there is no illegality in the order
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer
as
maintained
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation. He further submitted that
private respondents are in possession of the
plot in question since long and construction
has also been raised by private respondents,
as such, interference against the impugned
order will cause irreparable injury to the
private respondents. He further submitted
that civil suit No. 1186 of 1981 filed by
petitioners impleading respondent no.4 as
well as Raghuni for setting aside the
judgement and decree dated 27.8.1981
passed in civil suit No. 923 of 1981 was
dismissed for non-prosecution vide order
dated 15.1.1982, as such, decree of civil
suit passed on the basis of compromise has
attained
finality.
He
submitted
that
petitioners
have
concealed
the
fact
regarding dismissal of suit filed by
petitioners for declaring the judgement and
decree passed in civil suit No. 923 of 1981
as null and void, as such, writ petition filed
by petitioners cannot be entertained. He
further placed reliance upon the following
5 All. Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
judgement of this Court in support of his
argument:-

 "(i) AIR 1973 Supreme Court
2451 Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain
Singh and Others

(ii) SCC (2018) 330 Jharkhand
State Housing Board Vs. Dildar Singh"

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that plot No. 17 area 10 dismil was
recorded in the name of Shri Raghuni son
of Palak. There is also no dispute about the
fact that against the basic year entry,
objection were filed on behalf of the
petitioners for recording of their names on
the basis of sale deed dated 29.7.1981
alleged to be executed by Shri Raghuni in
favour of petitioners and respondent no.4
claimed right on the basis of adverse
possession. There is also no dispute about
the fact that Consolidation Officer has
rejected the claim of petitioners and
directed that plot in question should be
recorded as abadi Class 6 (2) category plot
but in appeal, the order of Consolidation
Officer was set aside and petitioners were
ordered to be recorded over the plot in
question on the basis of registered sale
deed. There is also no dispute about the fact
that in revision, the appellate order has
been set aside resulting into maintaining
the order of Consolidation Officer for
recording the plot in question as abadi
Class 6 (2) category plot. There is also no
dispute about the fact that civil suit No. 923
of 1981 filed by respondent no.4 for
injunction impleading Shri Raghuni as sole
defendant in respect to the plot in question
was decreed on the basis of compromise
vide
judgement
and
decree
dated
27.8.1981/ 10.9.1981.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of the issues framed before the
Consolidation Officer will be relevant
which are as under:-

"वाद प्रनतवादी के आधार पर ननमन वाद
बबन्दु बनाए गएः-

1. क्या अलि प्रसाद आदद वववादग्रस्त
भूसम के बैनामा के आधार पर भूसमधर एवं
अथधपत्यभोगी हैं?

2. क्या नरससंह पुत्र ठग वववादग्रस्त भूसम
की भूसमधर एवं अथधपत्यभोगी हैं?

3. क्या वववादग्रस्त भूसम मौके पर आबादी
है?

4. क्या कथर्त बैनामा अलि प्रसाद आदद
गलत व फजी है?

5. भूतपूवत कब्जे का प्रभाव?"

10. The perusal of the issues
framed before the Consolidation Officer
demonstrate that all the relevant issues
were framed before the Consolidation
Officer regarding the claim of petitioners
on the basis of sale deed and claim of
respondent no.4 on the basis of adverse
possession as well as regarding the nature
of the plot in question.

11. The perusal of the operative
portion
of
the
order
passed
by
Consolidation Officer will also be relevant
which is as under:-

"प्रनतसलवप आदेश च०अ०दद० 26.6.82 की
छायाप्रनत
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
राम प्रगट बत्रपाठी चकबन्दी अथधकारी 10 तरया
सुजान वाद सं० 1913 से 1915 अंतगत धारा 9
क (2) उ०प्र० जो० चकबन्दी अथधननयम बावत
ग्राम जबकक मलही मुस्तककल तप्पा बांक
जोथगनी परगना ससधुआ जोबना तहसील पिरौना
ण्जला देवररया।

1- नर ससंह पुत्र ठग ननवासी ग्रामवादी प्रर्म पि

1/1...

2- अलि प्रसाद व नगीक प्रसाद
पुत्रगर्-वादी द्ववतीय पि दल्ली नन० ग्राम
जवही दयाल
बनाम
रघुनी पुत्र फलक ननवासी ग्राम वततमान कतत.०
ग० - प्रनतपिी स्टेशन ननकट
आदेश

उपरोक्त वववेचक एवं ननष्कषों के
आधार पर ग्राम जवही मलही मुस्तककल के
िाता सं० 78 की भूसम सं० 17/0.10 से रघुनी पुत्र
पलक का नाम काटकर आबादी वगत 6(2) अंककत
ककया जाता है। नरससंह पुत्र ठग का नाम
अंककत करने की एवं अलि प्रसाद, जनक
प्रसाद, नगीना प्रसाद पुत्रगर् दल्ली का बैनामा
के आधार पर नाम अंककत करने की कायतवाही
िाररज की जाती है।

यह आदेश वाद सं० 1913 से 1915
पर लागू रहेगा। आदेश सुनाया गया। पत्रावली
बाद अमदरामद व पू० दाखिल दफ्तर हो।
हस्ता०अ०
26/6/82
चकबन्दी अथधकारी
तरया सुजान"

12. Consolidation Officer has decided
the objection of the petitioners as well as
respondent no.4 directing that plot in
question be recorded as abadi Class 6-2
category plot and claim of petitioners-
Alakh Prasad and others as well as
respondent no.4 for recording of their
names cannot be allowed.

13.
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation while deciding the appeal
has held that claim of petitioners on the
basis of registered sale deed cannot be
ignored and petitioners are entitled to be
recorded over the plot in question however
the plot in question be recorded as Shamil
jot abadi of the petitioners- Alakh Prasad
and Others on the basis of registered sale
deed dated 29.7.1981.

14.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has maintained the order of
Consolidation Officer for recording the plot
as abadi Class 6-(2) category plot as held
by Consolidation Officer after setting aside
the
order
of
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation in the revision under Section
48 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent
no.4 has also held that sale deed set up by
the petitioners is hit by Section 157-A of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which is not
proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

15. So far as jurisdiction of
consolidation Court in respect to abadil
land is concern, following judgements of
this Court will be relevant for perusal
which are as under:-

 "(i) 2004 (97) RD 705 Jai
Narain and Others Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and Others
 (iii) 2004 (96) RD 303 Ram
Prasad
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and Others
5 All. Alakh Prasad @ Alakh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
 (iii) 2003 (95) RD 611 Prabhu
Nath
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
 (iv) 1987 RD 85 Chakat and
Others Vs. Babu Ram and Another

(v)1979 RD 78 Kamla Shanker
and Others Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and Others
 (vi) 1974 RD 5 (DB) Triloki
Nath Vs. Ram Gopal and Others"

16. This Court in the case of Kamla
Shankar
(Supra)
has
held
that
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to decide the title in respect to
the abadi land. The perusal of the relevant
paragraph of the judgement rendered in
Kamla Shanker (Supra) will be necessary
which is as under:-

"Having heard learned counsel
for the parties I am of opinion that the
submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioners is well founded. In Triloki
Nath v. Ram Gopal(1) a Division Bench of
this Court held that if the consolidation
authorities find that a particular holding
is being used for purposes unconnected
with agriculture, horticulture, or animal
husbandry, etc., as envisaged by the
definition of ?land? under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, they have no jurisdiction to decide the
question of title in regard to such land.

The
argument
that
the
consolidation authorities have at least the
jurisdiction to correct the revenue records
was also repelled and it was held that this
could appropriately be done only after the
title to the land has been decided by the
appropriate court having jurisdiction in
the matter. In view of what has been held
in Triloki Nath's case I am of opinion that
the
only
jurisdiction
which
the
consolidation authorities had was to make
an entry in the relevant column of C.H.
Form No. 2-A that the land was Abadi on
the
spot.
They
did not have
any
jurisdiction to direct the names of the
petitioners to be expunged from the capers
showing them to be Bhumidhars.

It was urged by learned counsel
for respondent No. 4 that it the entry as
Bhumidars in favour of the petitioners is
allowed to continue it may be that in
subsequent proceedings Section 49 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act may
bar the claim of respondent No. 4. I am,
however, unable to agree with this
submission.
Apparently
when
the
consolidation authorities allow the entry
to continue on the ground that they have
no jurisdiction to decide the question of
title it cannot be said by any stretch of
imagination that any decision has been
reached by the consolidation authorities in
regard to the title. No question of the
claim of any party being barred by Section
49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act in subsequent proceedings, therefore,
arises. I am informed that a civil suit is
already pending for the demolition of the
constructions standing on the plot in
dispute. The suit has been filed by the
petitioners against respondent No. 4. The
entries in village papers can, therefore be
corrected after the rights of the parties
have finally been adjudicated upon by the
civil Court.
ORDER

6. In the result, the petition
succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the
consolidation authorities directing the
names of the petitioners to be expunged
are quashed. The petitioners will continue
to be recorded as Bhumidhars as in the
basic year till the rights of the parties have
been determined by a competent Court.
The
consolidation
authorities
will,
however, make an entry in the appropriate
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
column to the effect that the plot in
dispute is Abadi on the spot. In the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs."

17. So far as the maintainability of
civil suit in respect to the agricultural land
is concerned, the law is well settled that
civil suit in respect to the agricultural land
which is not recorded in the name of
plaintiff cannot be maintained.

18. In the instant matter, civil suit
No. 923 of 1981 filed by respondent no.4,
Narsingh
for
permanent
injunction
impleading the Raghuni as sole defendant
was decreed on the basis of compromise vide
judgement and decree dated 18.8.1981/
10.9.1981 but petitioners were not parties in
the aforementioned civil suit, as such, the
compromise decree passed in the civil suit
which was infact not maintainable as
plaintiff/Narsingh was not recorded over the
plot in question at the relevant point of time.
The adjudication regarding the plot in dispute
for the first time was made by consolidation
Court vide order dated 26.6.1982 declaring
the plot in question as abadi.

19. The exercise of revisional
jurisdiction
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation under Section 48 of the
U.P.C.H. Act recording finding regarding the
sale deed of the petitioners as null and void is
illegal as consolidation court cannot decide
title about the abadi land. The Consolidation
Officer has rightly held that plot in question
should be recorded as abadi Class 6 (2)
category plot and claim of petitioners on the
basis of sale deed as well as the claim of
respondent no.4/ Narsingh on the basis of
adverse possession were rejected. The
Appellate Court has set aside the order of
Consolidation Officer and has held that plot
in question should be recorded as "Shamil Jot
abadi" of the petitioners. Revisional Court
has exceeded in his revisional jurisdiction in
adjudicating the title of the plot which is
abadi on the basis of the order passed by
Consolidation Officer dated 26.6.1982.

20. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, the part of
impugned revisional order dated 7.1.2025
passed by respondent no.2 under which
the finding has been recorded regarding
the title of the plot in question cannot be
sustained in the eye of law and the same
is hereby set aside. So far as the part of
the revisional order by which the
appellate order dated 21.10.1982 has
been set aside is hereby maintained. The
order passed by Consolidation Officer
dated 26.6.1982 declaring the plot in
question as abadi Class 6 (2) category
plot is hereby affirmed. The parties will
have liberty to approach the Civil Court
for adjudication of the dispute regarding
the title of the land in dispute in
accordance with law.

21. The writ petition is allowed in
part.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ B No. 453 of 2025

Sambhu Prasad Pandey & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya
& Ors. ...Respondents