# Bhagwan Das @ Ram Das v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 69
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-14
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1520 of 2022
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-das-ram-das-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48829
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, -Section 9A(2)-challenge toDDC order-objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act
has
been
decided
on
the
basis
of
compromise
by
which
the
name
of
recorded tenure holder was expunged
from whom respondent no. 6 was claiming
right-Restoration application filed by the
respondent no. 6 was allowed by the
Consolidation Officer for deciding the case
on merit but no condition had been
imposed upon respondent no.6 for filing
the application with inordinate delay-The
impugned orders are modified to the
extent that the respondent no. 6 will pay
cost
for
allowing
the
restoration
application to the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to
the petitioner.(Para 1 to 10)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Bhagwan Das @ Ram Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
69
Lachman Das (supra) the same pertains to
the distinction between appeal and revision.
There cannot be any quarrel to the settled
proposition of law inasmuch the scope of
appeal and revision are clearly different. As
such, the said judgment would have no
applicability in the facts of the instant case.

27. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion as well as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Mirza Kishwar Beg
(supra) and the judgment of Uttrakhand
High Court in the case of Prema Devi
(supra) the Court holds that the revision
which was filed by the petitioners was
wrongly filed and the Board patently erred
in entertaining the same.

28. Considering the aforesaid, the writ
petition is partly allowed. The impugned
order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the
Board of Revenue, a copy of which is
annexure 1 to the writ petition is set aside.
It is provided that it would be open for the
petitioners to file a second appeal within a
period of two weeks from today.

29. Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4
to 12 fairly submits that in case the appeal
is filed within the aforesaid time then he
would not be raising the plea of limitation
before the Board of Revenue. It is thus
provided that in case the second appeal is
filed within the aforesaid time period then
the Board of Revenue shall proceed to
decide the same on merits.

30. It would be open for the
petitioners to file an application for stay
which will be considered by the Board of
Revenue expeditiously.

31. The Court records the valuable
assistance given by Sri Abhinav Narain
Trivedi, learned Chief Standing counsel
and Ms. Vaishnavi Bansal, Law Clerk
Trainee of this Court.
----------
(2022)07ILR A69
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 1520 of 2022

Bhagwan Das @ Ram Das ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasia

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, Sri Hariom
Upadhyay, Sri Pradeep Singh

A. Land Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, -Section 9A(2)-challenge toDDC order-objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act
has
been
decided
on
the
basis
of
compromise
by
which
the
name
of
recorded tenure holder was expunged
from whom respondent no. 6 was claiming
right-Restoration application filed by the
respondent no. 6 was allowed by the
Consolidation Officer for deciding the case
on merit but no condition had been
imposed upon respondent no.6 for filing
the application with inordinate delay-The
impugned orders are modified to the
extent that the respondent no. 6 will pay
cost
for
allowing
the
restoration
application to the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to
the petitioner.(Para 1 to 10)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hari Ram Vs DDC, Azamgarh (1989) RD Pg
281
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Sharda Prasad Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2015) 127 RD 702

3. Smt. Thaker Vs DDC & ors. (1975) RD 271

4. Ram Chand & anr. Vs DDC & ors. (1984) RD
258

5. Gurucharan Singh Baldev Singh Vs Yashwant
Singh (1992) 1 SCC 428

6. Glaxo Smith Kline PLC Vs Controller of
Patents & Designs (2009) AIR SC 1147

7. Gopi Singh Vs DDC & ors. (1967) RD 214

8. Ram Bahadur Vs DDC & ors. (1974) RD 627

9. Siddh Narain Vs DDC & ors. (2007) 103 RD
627
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Krishna
Kumar
Chaurasia,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent nos.1 to 4, Sri Pradeep Singh,
learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri
Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for
respondent nos.6 and 7.

2. The instant petition has been filed
for quashing the impugned order dated
9.5.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation / A.D.M., Namamigange,
Mirzapur as well as the order dated
27.12.2019 passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Mirzapur and
order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the
Consolidation Officer in the proceeding
arising out of Section 9A (2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in
the basic year of the consolidation
operation, one Somaroo was recorded over
Gata No.73/2 and 411/2 of Khata No.255.
A time barred objection under Section 9A
(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on 3.12.1998
by Basedeo (petitioner's father) and Laldeo
(respondent no.7) impleading Laldeo and
others for co-tenancy right, the case was
registered as Case No.1698. Somaroo had
died during pendency of the objection
before
Consolidation
Officer.
A
compromise was entered into in the
aforementioned Case No.1698 between
petitioner and respondent no.7 (natural
father and guardian of respondent no.6) by
compromise deed dated 25.11.1999, which
was verified by their counsel. Accordingly,
Consolidation Officer by order dated
4.4.2001 allowed the objection on the basis
of compromise after condoning the delay in
filing the objection by separate order and
ordered to record the name of petitioner's
father Basedeo over Plot Nos.73/2 and
411/2. Notification under Section 52 of
U.P.C.H. Act took place on 16.9.2006 in the
village in question. Respondent no.6, Panna
Lal
filed
an
application
before
Consolidation Officer on 18.8.2017 against
the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by
Consolidation Officer stating that he
(Panna Lal) was minor during the period of
consolidation and came to know about the
order dated 4.4.2001 on 6.8.2017 when the
interference was made with possession of
the petitioner. The basis of claim of
respondent no.6 is registered adoption deed
alleged to be executed on 20.11.1998 by
Somaroo in favour of respondent no.6
(Panna Lal). Petitioner filed an objection to
the restoration application and delay
condonation
application
filed
by
respondent no.6. Consolidation Officer by
order
dated
4.7.2009
allowed
the
restoration application giving benefit of
Section 5 of Limitation Act and set aside
the earlier order dated 4.4.2001 fixing a
date 18.7.2019 for further proceedings.
Against the order dated 4.7.2019 petitioner
filed an appeal under Section 11 of the
7 All. Bhagwan Das @ Ram Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation which was dismissed by
the Settlement Officer of Consolidation
vide order dated 27.12.2019. The revision
under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by
the petitioner against the order of the
Consolidation Officer as well as the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation was
dismissed by the impugned order dated
9.5.2022, hence this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that objection under Section 9A2 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the parties
were decided on the basis of compromise.
The result of which, petitioner's father was
ordered to be recorded expunging the name
of Somaroo but respondent no.6 on the
basis of manipulated gift deed, has setup
his claim through belated restoration
application
after
16
years
and
the
Consolidation
Officer
without
giving
cogent reason has allowed the restoration
application. He further submitted that
application for recall filed by respondent
no.6 on 18.8.2017 was not maintainable as
notification under Section 52 of the
U.P.C.H. Act had already taken place on
16.9.2006. He placed reliance upon 1989
R.D. Page 281, Hari Ram Vs. D.D.C.
Azamgarh on the point of Section 52 of the
U.P.C.H. Act. He next submitted that even
no condition has been imposed for allowing
the restoration application which was
belated by 16 years. He also submitted that
the petitioner is in possession of the
disputed plots and respondents have
initiated the proceeding by way of
restoration/recall in order to harass the
petitioner, hence writ petition be allowed
and the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for respondent no.6 and 7 submitted that
fraud
has
taken
place
before
the
Consolidation Officer in obtaining the
order on the basis of compromise. He
further submitted that respondent no.6 was
minor at the time when the proceeding
were pending and compromise has taken
place, as such, the order passed on the basis
of compromise was rightly set aside by the
Consolidation Officer while allowing the
restoration application. He next submitted
that appeal and revision etc. can be filed
against
the
order
of
consolidation
authorities even after notification under
Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. He placed
reliance upon 2015 (127) R.D. 702 Sharda
Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and
Others. He also submitted that the case has
been restored on its original number by the
Consolidation Officer so petitioner can take
whatever objection he want before the
Consolidation Officer, hence he prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that
objection under Section 9A (2) of the
U.P.C.H. Act has been decided on the basis
of compromise by which the name
recorded tenure holder was expunged from
whom respondent no.6 is claiming right,
accordingly, restoration application filed by
respondent no.6 was allowed by the
Consolidation Officer for deciding the case
on merit but no condition has been imposed
upon respondent no.6 for filing the
application with inordinate delay.

7. In Smt. Thaker Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation And Others
1975 R.D. 271, it has been held that the
High Court should not interfere under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in
exercise of discretion in condoning the
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delay by consolidation authorities. In Ram
Chand and Another Vs. Deputy Director
of Consolidation and Others, 1984 R.D.
258, it has been held that order of
condonation of delay raises no question of
jurisdiction so as to call for interference by
the Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. On the point of Section 52 of the
U.P.C.H. Act, Para No.11 in the case of
Sharda Prasad Tiwari (supra) will be
relevant which is as follows:

"11. The other argument that the
consolidation operation was closed in the
village by notification under Section 52 of
the Act, on 30.4.1990 and the appeal was
filed on 13.4.2002, as such, it was not
maintainable has also no force. Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act authorizes for
filing of the appeal after repeal of the Act.
Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh
Baldev Singh Vs. Yashwant Singh (1992)
1 SCC 428 and Glaxo Smith Kline PLC
Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs AIR
2009 SC 1147 held that pre-existing right
of appeal under the old law continues to
exist and not destroyed by necessary
implications after repeal of the law, in the
absence of contrary intention in the
repealing law. Division Benches of this
Court in Gopi Singh Vs. D.D.C. and
Others 1967 R.D. 214, Ram Bahadur Vs.
D.D.C. and Others 1974 R.D. 627, and in
Siddh Narain Vs. D.D.C. and Others 2007
(103) R.D. 627 have held that appeal and
revision etc. can be filed against the orders
passed by consolidation authorities even
after the notification under Section 52 of
the Act."

9. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as the ratio of law
laid down by the Court on the point in issue
no interference is required against the
impugned orders except that since no
condition has been imposed by the
Consolidation Officer while allowing the
restoration application of respondent no.6,
as such, the impugned orders are modified
to the extent that respondent no.6 will pay
cost for allowing the restoration application
to the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner
on the date fixed before the Consolidation
Officer.

10. The writ petition is finally
disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The parties will appear before
the Consolidation Officer on 22nd August,
2022.

(ii) The respondent no. 6 will pay
cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner on the
date fixed i.e. 22.8.2022 before the
Consolidation
Officer
and
the
Consolidation Officer shall mention the
same in the order sheet.

11. Since, the case is very old, as
such,
the
Consolidation
Officer
is
directed to decide the case expeditiously
preferably within a period of six months
after affording opportunity of hearing to
the parties from the date of production
of certified copy of this order before
him.
----------
(2022)07ILR A72
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 873 of 2022

Mohd. Maqsood Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents