# Becha Lal v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1003588 of 2003
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/becha-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53608
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

transferred during the period when Section 168A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was in existence with
regard to an area which though initially was
7 All. Becha Lal Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
597
subject to proceedings under Section 4 of the
U.P.. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 but
were subsequently cancelled by issuance of
notification
under
Section
6
before
the
proceedings were finalized, would bar of Section
168-A still apply?
Headnotes
Consolidation operations had not attained
finality -accordingly, all the proceedings had
ceased from the issuance of the notification
under Section 6 of the Act of 1953.-on issuance
of the aforesaid notification- the said land could
not
be
held
to
be
under
consolidation
operations-hence,
excluded
from
being
considered a consolidated area- S.D.M. did not
consider the aforesaid aspect and concluded in
assumptions that the disputed land was liable to
be considered as a consolidated area as per
Section 2A-clearly contrary to the statutory
provisions- impugned orders set aside. W.P.
allowed.
Held:
U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Act
-sec168-A-U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-sec.2,
4,6-On the issuance of the notification under
Section 6 of the Act of 1953, the area which in
fact came under consolidation operation got
excluded from the consolidated area and
therefore, also came to be excluded from the
rigors of Section 168-A of the UP. Zamindari and
Abolition Act. (E-9)
Case Law Cited

## Text

596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provides for the award to be made in
writing and signed by the members of the
arbitral tribunal. Sub-section (5) mandates,
the arbitral award, on its making, signed
copy thereof be delivered to each party.
Section 36 provides for enforcement of the
award. It follows that the award, when
made, signed copy of it must be made
available to a party to the reference.
Requirement for payment of stamp duty
will arise, when the award is sought to be
enforced.

7. In M. Anasuya Devi (supra), the
Supreme Court noticed that it was urged by
respondent before it, the award in that case
did create rights in favour of the parties and
it required registration. The Court said,
view taken by the High Court was in
conformity with the law. In this case
petitioner says, he is not aware of contents
in the award. Mr. Kumar reiterates,
question of payment of stamp duty will
only arise at or prior to execution. We
accept his submission but are of the view
that the vires challenge is unfounded.

8. Section 30 in the Act of 2006
empowers the State Government to make
rules to carry out provisions of the Act.
Impugned clause under rule 6 is for
purpose of enforcement of an award.
Petitioner's case must result in award for
money and hence, petitioner is referring to
entry 12 in schedule I-B of the Stamp Act
as applicable in the State. In some other
case, it may be an award on interest in
respect of immovable property, to make it
compulsorily registrable under section 17
in Registration Act, 1908. Whatever be the
case, the State Government in requiring an
arbitral award, made by the council,
enforceable is seen to have duly exercised
the power in promulgating, inter alia,
clause (xii) under rule 6 of the 2006 Rules,
applicable in this State. However, the
communication requiring stamp duty to be
paid for making signed copy of the award
available to petitioner, who was party in the
reference,
cannot
stand
inasmuch
as
referred to sub-sections in section 31 of the
1996 Act mandate signed copy of the
award being made available to it. The 1996
Act has been made applicable in this case
on invocation of chapter V in the MSME
Act, 2006.

9. Petitioner will produce certified
copy of this judgment before respondent
no.2, whereupon signed copy of the award
is to be made available to it.

10. The writ petition is allowed and
disposed of as above.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 596
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1003588 of 2003

Becha Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kishore
Kr.
Srivastava,
Ravi
Shanker
Tewari, Sheo Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, R.N. Gupta

Issue for consideration
When a fragment of a holding has been
transferred during the period when Section 168A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was in existence with
regard to an area which though initially was
7 All. Becha Lal Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
597
subject to proceedings under Section 4 of the
U.P.. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 but
were subsequently cancelled by issuance of
notification
under
Section
6
before
the
proceedings were finalized, would bar of Section
168-A still apply?
Headnotes
Consolidation operations had not attained
finality -accordingly, all the proceedings had
ceased from the issuance of the notification
under Section 6 of the Act of 1953.-on issuance
of the aforesaid notification- the said land could
not
be
held
to
be
under
consolidation
operations-hence,
excluded
from
being
considered a consolidated area- S.D.M. did not
consider the aforesaid aspect and concluded in
assumptions that the disputed land was liable to
be considered as a consolidated area as per
Section 2A-clearly contrary to the statutory
provisions- impugned orders set aside. W.P.
allowed.
Held:
U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Act
-sec168-A-U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-sec.2,
4,6-On the issuance of the notification under
Section 6 of the Act of 1953, the area which in
fact came under consolidation operation got
excluded from the consolidated area and
therefore, also came to be excluded from the
rigors of Section 168-A of the UP. Zamindari and
Abolition Act. (E-9)
Case Law Cited
1. Dalip Singh and 3 others versus Vikram Singh
and 6 others, Special Appeal Defective No.421
of 2015
List of Acts
1. U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
2. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
List of Keywords

Appearance of the parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kishore Kr. Srivastava,
Ravi Shanker Tewari, Sheo Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dilip Kumar
Pandey, R.N. Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned
Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 30.08.2001 passed by SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow
thereby rejecting the application preferred
by petitioner.

3. The petitioner moved an application
under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act
for mutation of his name in place of name
of recorded tenure holder on the basis of
registered sale deed whereby the petitioner
had purchased a plot of land Khasra
No.874 Khatauni No.134 area 6 Biswa
situated at Village Sikroori, Pergana, Tehsil
and District Lucknow from its recorded
tenure holder Shri Kailash Chandra Yadav
son of Late Shri Baboo Lal.

4. It has been submitted by counsel for
the petitioner that the area of Khasra
No.874, total area was 2 Bighas 9 Biswa,
out of which the petitioner has purchased
only 6 Biswas of land which was a
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fragment of the total holding of the
recorded tenure holder. On the application
of the petitioner for mutation, a notice was
issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Sadar, Lucknow under Section 166/167 of
the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act asking him to
respond as to why the said land should not
be vested in the State Government in light
of the provisions contained in Section 168A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, which
provides
for
a
clear
injunction
of
fragmenting that holdings. The proceedings
before the S.D.M. were conducted ex parte
and the petitioner did not appear and only
after perusal of the record, the S.D.M.
recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the
petitioner had purchased 6 Biswa of land in
Gata No.874 which happens to be a
fragment of the total area which is not
permissible in light of provisions under
Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
and accordingly, directed the vesting of the
said land in the State Government. It was
further submitted that as per provision of
166 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, any transfer
made in contravention of the Act was void
and as per the consequences provided
under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Act, the said land vested in the State
Government after he declared the said
transfer to be void.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the order dated 30.08.2001 preferred a
revision
under
Section
333
of
the
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act before the Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow
Mandal,
Lucknow.
Before
revisional
authority, it was submitted that the
proceedings before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate are illegal and arbitrary and in
gross violation of principle of natural
justice inasmuch as no opportunity of
hearing was given and hence prayed for
setting aside the said order.

6.
The
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial) considered the arguments of the
petitioner, who subsequently, did not
appear in the revision and consequently, it
was rejected holding that there has been no
violation of principle of natural justice.

7. The counsel for the petitioner while
assailing both the orders date 30.08.2001
and 11.10.2002 has submitted that a perusal
of Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
would indicate that injunction against
transfer of fragments applies only if the
said land is situated in consolidated area
and does not extent to any other area which
is not found to be part of consolidated area.
He submits that the said amendment was
brought into effect by U.P. Act, 18 of 1956
but it was omitted from the statute book by
U.P. Act 27 of 19 from 2004 with effect
from 23.08.2004. It has been submitted that
at the time when the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
was enacted, the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 was not in existence
and it is only after enactment of the Act of
1953 that the "consolidated area" came to
be defined under Section 2A of the Act of
1953 which is quoted hereunder:

"2A.[ 'Consolidation area' means
the area, in respect of which notification
under Section 4 has been issued, except
such
portions
thereof
to
which
the
provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950,] [Added by
U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958.] [or any other
Law by which Zamindari System has been
abolished] [Added by U.P. Act No. 30 of
1991 (w.e.f. 19.02.1991).] do not apply;"

8. Accordingly, it is stated that such
area would be deemed to be consolidated
area only where a notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1953 is issued with
regard to such area. It has been submitted
7 All. Becha Lal Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
599
that notice under Section 4 of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was
issued on 25.09.1982 but before the
consolidation
operations
could
be
concluded, order for cancellation of the
notification under Section 4 was issued on
26.10.1985. The aforesaid facts have also
been stated in affidavit dated 28.05.2025
filed by Sri Praveen Singh Gautam,
Additional Consolidation Officer, Bakshi
ka Talab, Lucknow.

9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances,
this Court is called upon to consider the
fact that when a fragment of a holding has
been transferred during the period when
Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
was in existence with regard to an area
which though initially was subject to
proceedings under Section 4 of the U.P..
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 but
were subsequently cancelled by issuance of
notification under Section 6 before the
proceedings were finalized, would bar of
Section 168-A still apply?

10. Considering the provisions of
Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act,
one of the conditions necessary for the
applications of injunction against transfer
of fragment is the fact that the fragment
should be situated in a "consolidation area",
except where the transfer is in favour of
tenure holder, whose plot is contiguous to
the fragment or the transfer is not in favour
of any such tenure holder.

11. Accordingly, the moot question for
consideration is as to whether at the
relevant time whether the said unit can be
held to be included in the consolidated
area.

12.
To
consider
the
aforesaid
submissions, one has to consider the
provisions of Sections 6 (2) of the Act of
1953
which
provides
that
where
a
notification has been cancelled in respect of
any unit under Sub Section (1), such area
shall subject to the final orders relating to
corrections of land records, if any, passed
on or before the date of such cancellation
seized to be under consolidation operations
w.e.f. date of cancellation. Hence, on
issuance of a notification under Section 6
of the Act of 1953, cancelling the
notification under Section 4 of the Act of
1953, all the consolidation operations cease
except the final order relating to corrections
of land record.

13. The ambit of Sections 4 and 6 has
been elaborated by a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in the case of Dalip Singh
and 3 others versus Vikram Singh and 6
others, Special Appeal Defective No.421
of 2015 wherein following has been
observed:

The provisions of Sections 4 and
6 of the Act came up for consideration
before a Division Bench of this Court in
Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd.
(supra). The Division Bench held that when
the Director of Consolidation issues a
notification under Section 4 or Section 6,
he performs neither a quasi judicial
function
nor
does
he
exercise
an
administrative power. In the view of the
Division Bench, the power was of a
legislative nature. Moreover, it was held
that if a notification is issued under Section
6, the land holder has no rights which are
affected
in
consequence
of
such
a
notification. The Supreme Court in the
judgment in Harbhajan Singh (supra) while
considering a similar provision contained
in Section 16(1) of the Consolidation Act in
the State of Himachal Pradesh held as
follows:-
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"It is, thus, clear that it is only
when the persons entitled to possession of
holdings under the Act have been delivered
possession of the holdings that they acquire
rights, title and interest in the new holding
allotted to them and the consolidation
scheme in the area is deemed to have come
into force. Till such possession of the
allotted land under the consolidation
scheme is delivered to the allottees and the
consolidation scheme is deemed to come
into force, the State Government has the
power under Section 16(1) of the Act to
cancel the declaration under Section 14(1)
of the Act."

The Supreme Court also held as
follows:

"We have already held that the
State Government can issue a notification
under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling
the declaration under Section 14(1) of the
Act in respect of any area at any time
before the persons entitled to possession of
holdings under the Act have entered into
possession of the holdings allotted to them.
Since before the persons enter into
possession of the holdings allotted to them,
they do not acquire any right, title and
interest in the holdings allotted to them and
they do not lose in any manner their rights,
title and interest in their original holdings,
their rights are not affected by the issuance
of a notification under Section 16(1) of the
Act. In other words, a notification under
Section 16(1) of the Act issued by the State
Government before delivery of possession
of the allotted holdings to persons has no
civil consequences and, therefore, the State
Government is not required to follow the
principles of natural justice before issuing
such a notification."

The principle of law which has
been laid down in the judgment of the
Division Bench and in the judgment of the
Supreme Court is that before persons have
entered into possession of the holdings
allotted to them, they do not acquire any
right, title or interest and they would not
lose their rights by the issuance of a
notification under Section 6 of the Act. That
is the position in law. The writ petition
challenging the notification under Section 6
of the Act was not maintainable since there
were no rights enuring to the benefit of the
original petitioners which were taken away
or affected by a notification under Section
6 of the Act.

14. In the present case, there is no
dispute that the consolidation operations
had not attained finality and accordingly,
all the proceedings had ceased from the
issuance of the notification under Section 6
of the Act of 1953. On issuance of the
aforesaid notification, the said land could
not be held to be under consolidation
operations and hence, excluded from being
considered a consolidated area.

15. The S.D.M. did not consider the
aforesaid aspect of the matter and merely
assuming that the area was subject to
consolidation operations, concluded that
the disputed land was liable to be
considered as a consolidated area as per
Section 2A of the Act of 1953. This
presumption is clearly contrary to the
statutory
provisions
as
discussed
hereinabove. On the issuance of the
notification under Section 6 of the Act of
1953, the area which in fact came under
consolidation operation got excluded from
the consolidated area and therefore, also
came to be excluded from the rigors of
Section 168-A of the UP. Zamindari and
Abolition Act,

16. Accordingly, in light of the above,
both the impugned orders dated 30.08.2001
7 All. Akbar & Anr. Vs. Add. Commissioner Judicial & Ors.
601
and 11.10.2002 are illegal and arbitrary and
are set aside. The petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 601
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1004048 of 2002

Akbar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Add. Commissioner Judicial & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Farooq Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Anand
Dubey,
Brijesh
Kumar
Mishra,
R.N.
Gupta,
Rajendra
Singh
Chauhan

Issue for consideration
Legality
of
impugned
orders
are
passed
rejecting the lease granted to the Petitioners.

Headnotes
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-sec.198-Respondent
moved application for cancellation of patta of
Petitioner-rejected-revision-allowed-impugned
order- impugned order records that lower court
has not come to the conclusion on the basis of
evidence -CH form recorded the disputed
numbers which are old numbers 1090, 1091,
1092 and the respondent Nos.3 to 7 have been
declared to be Seechdar of the disputed
numbers- mutation could not take place,
therefore, at the time of lease, the land was
shown as Usal- if under the public document- it
is certified that there are some orders of the
Consolidation Officer -it is seen to be correct
and genuine-till by producing documentary
evidence- it is not shown to be illegal or forgedthe proceeding for cancellation of lease was
accepted and the lease granted to the petitioner
was cancelled-impugned order legal. W.P.
dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ActList of Keywords

Appearance of parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Farooq Ahmad
Counsel
for
Respondent
:-
C.S.C.,Anand
Dubey,Brijesh
Kumar
Mishra,R.N.
Gupta,Rajendra Singh Chauhan

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Anand
Dubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
private
respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the
petitioner is challenging the order dated
28.10.2002
passed
by
respondent
No.1
contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
land management committee of Gaon Sabha
Daulatyarpur passed a resolution for allotting
land of gaon sabha to landless persons including
the petitioners on 11.06.1989. The Sub
Divisional Officer (SDO), Bilgram, District
Hardoi approved the resolution on 11.06.1989
of the land management committee of the gaon
sabha.