# Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh v. D.D.C Sitapur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 588
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-27
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1043 of 2024
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandan-singh-chandra-pal-singh-v-d-d-c-sitapur-ors-53227
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -U.P. Zamindar Abolition &
Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 171-The
dispute pertained to agricultural plots
recorded in the name of late Ruda Singh,
who died intestate in 1979- n 1984, a
revenue court vested his land with the
Gaon Sabha, declaring he had no legal
heirs-The petitioner, claiming to be his
nephew, challenged this much later during
consolidation
proceedings
starting
in
1995-The petitioner failed to challenge
the 1984 order in a timely manner-The
petitioner's
evidence
of
kinship(an
undated certificate by the gram pradhan)
lacked authenticity and corroborationThere were inconsistencies in his identity
,age and claims-He executed gift deeds in
favour of third parties soon after his name
was recorded, raising suspicion of land
grabbing-The
court
held
that
the
petitioner failed to establish any valid
relationship with Ruda Singh-The only
proof submitted (a pradhan certificate)
had
no
legal
value-Thus,
the
court
concluded that the findings of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation were based on
valid legal and factual reasoning.(Para 1
to 71)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,893 of 51,263. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39893 for what follows._

588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited
Bombay and others, (1993) 3 SCALE
424. (also see : T.R. Single and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others, (2003) 2 ILR
Punjab and Haryana 254, and Shila Devi
and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
and converted 807 petitions decided by
Punjab and Haryana High Court on
27.11.2024, wherein also policy of fixing
15 years for recovery of commuted part of
pension was upheld)

18. The Court also takes note that
commuted amount petitioners has range
from 12 lakh to 14 lakh and installment is
between 11,000/- and 14,000/- per month,
which is not exorbitant. The petitioners has
also not disclosed their respective pension
amount. It is also relevant to note that for
purpose of other benefits, pension amount is
considered without taking note of commuted
amount and accordingly, all writ petitions are
dismissed and correspondently interim orders
passed in all writ petitions are vacated.

19. A copy of this order be
communicated
to
Principal
Secretary
(Finance), Government of U.P. at Lucknow.

20. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 588
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ B No. 1043 of 2024

Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Digvijay Singh, Dilip Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law -U.P. Zamindar Abolition &
Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 171-The
dispute pertained to agricultural plots
recorded in the name of late Ruda Singh,
who died intestate in 1979- n 1984, a
revenue court vested his land with the
Gaon Sabha, declaring he had no legal
heirs-The petitioner, claiming to be his
nephew, challenged this much later during
consolidation
proceedings
starting
in
1995-The petitioner failed to challenge
the 1984 order in a timely manner-The
petitioner's
evidence
of
kinship(an
undated certificate by the gram pradhan)
lacked authenticity and corroborationThere were inconsistencies in his identity
,age and claims-He executed gift deeds in
favour of third parties soon after his name
was recorded, raising suspicion of land
grabbing-The
court
held
that
the
petitioner failed to establish any valid
relationship with Ruda Singh-The only
proof submitted (a pradhan certificate)
had
no
legal
value-Thus,
the
court
concluded that the findings of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation were based on
valid legal and factual reasoning.(Para 1
to 71)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the instant petition,
the relevant facts giving rise to the cause of
action to the petitioner are being noticed
hereinafter.

2. The dispute in question relates
to Plots No.100, 318 and 443 having a total
area of 4.3120 hectares, situate in village
Para, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur.
The aforesaid plots are part of Khata
3 All. Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur & Ors.
589
No.218 which was recorded in the
name of Ruda Singh as its Bhumidhar in
the base year khatauni.

3. Ruda Singh is said to have
expired in the year 1979 leaving behind his
nephew (bhanja) i.e. the petitioner, who
was the son of Smt. Sita Singh (sister of
Ruda Singh and second wife of Fakirey
Singh). The petitioner claimed rights in the
property in dispute on the basis of being the
preferential heir in terms of Section 171 of
the U.P. Zamindar Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of
1950').

4. The record indicates that in the
year 1984, certain proceedings under
Section 194 of the Act of 1950 were
initiated in the Court of Sub Divisional
Officer, Sitapur and vide its order dated
17.09.1984, the said case was decided by
recording a finding that Shri Ruda Singh
had died intestate. Since, he did not have
any legal heir, hence, the plots in question
were ordered to be recorded in the name of
Gaon Sabha.

5. The petitioner states that when he
came to know about the order dated
17.09.1984, he preferred a revision before the
Additional
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow. By the said revision
bearing No.78/2018, the petitioner had
assailed the order, but during the aforesaid
proceedings
before
the
Additional
Commissioner, it was noticed by the said
Court that since an appeal under Section
11(1) of the Act of 1953 was pending before
the Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
hence, the revisional Court abated the
revision vide its order dated 22.02.2022.

6. It is also the case of the
petitioner that village in question was
notified under Section 4 of the Act of 1953
on 22.07.1995. The petitioner had filed his
objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act
of 1953 before the Consolidation Officer,
claiming title over the disputed plots as
being the heir of late Ruda Singh (Mamaji,
maternal uncle of the petitioner) on the
basis of inheritance being the legal heir. In
support of his claim, the petitioner had filed
a certificate issued by Gram Pradhan
stating that the petitioner is the nephew
(Bhanja) of late Ruda Singh and that Smt.
Sita Singh (mother of the petitioner) was
the real sister of late Ruda Singh.

7. The Consolidation Officer vide
its order dated 04.01.2016 allowed the
objections of the petitioner. The State as
well as Gram Sabha being aggrieved
against the order dated 04.01.2016 passed
by the Consolidation Officer preferred an
appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act of
1953. Simultaneously, an appeal was also
filed by Mohd. Imran Khan, Hari Shankar
and Smt. Rukhsana. The Settlement Officer
of Consolidation after hearing the parties
concerned dismissed all the appeals by
means of the order dated 08.05.2023.

8. In the meantime, in pursuance
of the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the
Consolidation Officer in favour of the
petitioner, the Consolidation Officer vide
its order dated 09.06.2023 incorporated the
name of the petitioner in the records
maintained by the consolidation authorities.
This order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the
Consolidation Officer in proceedings under
Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation and
Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short, 'the Rules
of 1954') was assailed by filing an appeal
by the State and the Gaon Sabha, Mohd.
Imran Khan, Hari Shankar and Smt. Prema
Devi. All the said appeals were dismissed
by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, eight
revisions were filed before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. One set was
filed by the State, the other set was filed by
Gaon Sabha. Separate revision was filed by
Mohd. Imran Khan, separate revision was
filed by Smt. Rukhsana and two separate
revisions were filed by Hari Shankar. All
the revisions were connected and have been
decided by means of the order dated
17.09.2024. The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation allowed five revision filed
by the State and Gaon Sabha wherein the
order dated 04.01.2016 passed under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953, order
dated
09.06.2023
passed
by
the
Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of
the Rules of 1954 along with order dated
08.05.2023 and 03.08.2023 passed by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation were
set aside as a consequence revisions ending
with the following number 173, 248, 267,
118 and 119 were allowed and revision
ending with following number 190, 253
and 254 were dismissed. In this backdrop,
the petitioner has assailed the judgment of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
17.09.2024 by filing this petition.

10. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned
Senior Counsel along with Shri Shadab
Khan and Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioner has urged that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation had
exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the
revisions of the State and the Gaon Sabha
as the order suffers from misconstruction of
facts.

11. It was urged that reasons as
indicated in the order of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation reflects that the
grounds which prevailed in the mind of the
Court while allowing the revisions are
legally not tenable.
12. It was stated that the revisional
Court has noticed that the death certificate
which was issued by the Gram Pradhan of
the Gram did not inspire any confidence as
it was issued by a person, who had no
authority for doing so. It is further urged
that it has incorrectly been held by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation that the
order dated 17.09.1984 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer was not challenged by
the petitioner whereas the Deputy Director
of Consolidation ignored the fact that the
petitioner had filed a revision, assailing the
order dated 17.09.1984, which as per the
order of the Additional Commissioner
dated 22.02.2022 was abated since the
village in question was under consolidation
operations and an appeal filed by the State
and Gaon Sabha were pending before the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

13. It was submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel that the petitioner in the
first place was not aware of the order dated
17.09.1984 but as soon as he became
aware, he had challenged the order dated
17.09.1984, hence, it could not be said that
the petitioner had not assailed the order.
Once, the order had been assailed but the
proceedings
abated
in
view
of
consolidation operations, the order dated
17.09.1984 could not have been treated as
having attained finality at least insofar as
the petitioner is concerned. Moreover, by
virtue of operation of law, the village was
put under consolidation operations, hence,
the said order could not come in the way of
the petitioner.

14. It was further argued that when
the petitioner had filed his objections under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 wherein
the
Consolidation
Officer
and
the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation upheld
the claim of the petitioner being the
3 All. Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur & Ors.
591
nephew (Bhanja) of late Ruda Singh, thus,
till even one heir of Ruda Singh was alive
then in light of the order of succession as
provided in Section 171 of the Act of 1950,
the property could not be vested in the
State.

15. It was also urged that any
proceedings held behind the back of the
petitioner could not be pressed against him
and once the matter was seized by the
Consolidation Officer in proceedings under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 then the
said proceedings become the substantive
proceedings where the rights of the parties
had to be adjudicated. Without considering
the relationship of the petitioner and Ruda
Singh and without holding that Ruda Singh
did not have any heir till then passing of an
order vesting the property in the State is per
se in excess of jurisdiction vested in the
Deputy Director of Consolidation.

16. It was also urged that the
proceedings which were initiated in the
year 1984 under Section 194 of the Act of
1950 where the petitioner was not a party,
hence,
any
order
passed
in
such
proceedings could not be made binding
against the petitioner. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation by observing that the
order dated 17.09.1984 had not been
assailed, therefore, the petitioner would
have no right is an erroneous view, as in
order to arrive at such a conclusion, it
ought to have recorded cogent reasons to
discredit the relationship of the petitioner
and late Ruda Singh and needless to say,
the same has not been done.

17. Learned Senior Counsel further
in order to buttress his submissions pointed
out that the alleged proceedings which
culminated in order dated 17.09.1984 were
a sham as it would indicate from the record
that no notice was issued to the petitioner.
Moreover, the proclamation which is said
to have been made in the proceedings of
the year 1984 was not in accordance with
law, apart from the fact that it disclosed that
the said proclamation was served on the
Gram Pradhan and/or no other person.

18. It was also urged that where
the Gram Pradhan was a contesting and an
interested party then before any order under
Section 194 of the Act of 1950 could be
passed the least that could have been
ascertained was whether the real affected
parties had been served, however, in the
instant case, it would reveal that there is
nothing on record to indicate that apart
from Gram Pradhan, the said notice was
served on any of the private parties, who
were contesting the proceedings and
needless to say that the petitioner was not
even a party. Hence, the said proceedings
on which reliance has been placed by the
State as well as Deputy Director of
Consolidation it had no legs to support the
case. Consequently, the order passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation was bad
in law.

19. It was lastly urged by the
learned Senior Counsel that once the
proceedings had been decided by the
Consolidation Officer holding the petitioner
to be the nephew of late Ruda Singh then in
such
circumstances,
there
was
no
justification to vest the property in question
with the State. It may be a different
situation where apart from the petitioner
certain other persons who also claimed to
be nephews of Ruda Singh had contested
the proceedings but that could only be
treated as a dispute amongst the nephews
inter se but it does not absolve the
responsibility of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation to have noticed that even if
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one legal heir was available, the land could
not be vested in the State and thus the order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation dated 17.09.1984 cannot
stand judicial scrutiny and deserves to be
set aside.

20. Dr. Krishna Singh, learned
standing counsel appearing for the State
has refuted the submission advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
petitioner and he urged that the petitioner
has not stated the complete facts and has
also not brought on record the relevant
documents and orders which were passed
in respect of the disputed property from
time to time as well as certain subsequent
events such as gift-deeds executed by the
petitioner in favour of third parties.

21. Elaborating his submissions,
Dr.
Singh,
learned
standing
counsel
submitted that initially proceedings under
Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 (for short, 'the Act of 1901') bearing
Case No.174 was decided on 19.07.1979
wherein in respect of Plot No.190-A which
was recorded in the name of Ruda Singh,
his name, was deleted and it came to be
recorded in the name of Nathu Singh son of
Pahalwan Singh, who claimed on the basis
of a Will. The remaining land of Ruda
Singh was mutated in the names of
Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat
Singh, all three sons of Badri Singh, who
claimed to be the nephews (children of real
sister of Ruda Singh) as successors of Ruda
Singh.

22. Upon an application moved by
the Pradhan, the proceedings under Section
194 of the Act of 1950 were initiated on the
premise that Ruda Singh did not have any
successor, hence, the land ought to be
vested with the Gaon Sabha. The said
proceedings initiated at the behest of the
then Gram Pradhan came to be contested
by Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and
Bharat Singh (who claimed to be the
nephews of Ruda Singh being his real
sister's sons), however, the same came to be
decided by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Sitapur holding that Ruda Singh did not
have any legal heir and the land was
directed to be vested with the State/Gaon
Sabha by means of the order dated
17.09.1984. Since then, the land remained
recorded with the Gaon Sabha.

23. Upon commencement of
consolidation operations in the village in
the year 1995, one Chandan Singh (the
petitioner) filed his objections under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 claiming
rights on the land on the basis of succession
claiming to be the nephew of Ruda Singh,
however, later Chandan Singh absented
himself in the proceedings and an ex-parte
order
dated
11.04.2008
was
passed.
Subsequently, an application for restoration
was moved by one Akhilesh Kumar which
was allowed on 01.08.2012 and thereafter
the proceedings were revived and the
Consolidation Officer framed issues on
09.08.2012.

24. It was further submitted that
earlier Chandan Singh had filed his
objections on 09.12.2004 claiming rights in
the land in question being the successor of
Ruda Singh but after the restoration,
Chandan Singh filed another set of
objections on 19.06.2013 claiming on the
basis of an unregistered Will of Ruda
Singh.

25. It was further submitted that
the Consolidation Officer while passing the
order dated 04.01.2016 erred in ignoring
the material on record relating to the earlier
3 All. Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur & Ors.
593
round of litigation including the fact that
the petitioner could not have claimed rights
being the nephew of Ruda Singh merely on
the strength of a certificate issued by the
Gram Pradhan which had no sanctity apart
from the fact that the Consolidation Officer
also did not consider the impact of the
earlier order dated 19.07.1979 as well as
the order dated 17.09.1984 which related to
the property in question and the said orders
had remained intact.

26. It was also urged that during
pendency of the appeal filed by Prema Devi
before
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation, she impleaded the State and
Gaon Sabha as a party and she pressed that
the said land be vested in the State. It was
further urged that the order passed in
proceedings under Section 194 of the Act
of 1950 was not challenged in a revision
before the Additional Commissioner, which
was abated vide order dated 22.02.2022. It
was urged that in the revision before the
Additional Commissioner the order dated
25.11.2017 was challenged which was only
a consequential order, but the main order
dated 17.09.1984 never came to be
challenged and to this extent the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not
made a correct submission rather his
pleadings in Para-6 of the writ petition and
the submissions both are against the record.
Thus,
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation committed a gross error in
dismissing the appeal by proceeding on the
premise that the order dated 17.09.1984
was challenged.

27. The learned standing counsel
had further submitted that in the aforesaid
backdrop the State and the Gaon Sabha
preferred the revision before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, who after taking
note of the facts and also specifically
noticing that the order dated 17.09.1984
was never challenged coupled with the fact
that
there
was
no
material
worth
consideration to establish that the petitioner
was the nephew of Ruda Singh, allowed the
revisions and the order of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation dated 17.09.2024
cannot be faulted.

28. Dr. Singh has further pointed
out that identity of the present petitioner is
also dubious for the reason that while
Chandan Singh son of Fakirey had filed his
objections before the Consolidation Officer
and in the Vakalatnama filed by Chandan
Singh, there was discrepancy in his
signatures. It was also sought to be pointed
out by the learned standing counsel that the
date of birth of Chandan Singh as noticed
in Aadhar Card is different to the date of
birth recorded in his driving licence.

29. It was further pointed out that
in an appeal filed by Prema Singh, the
present petitioner Chandan Singh used his
alias as Chandra Pal Singh and appeared
through Ram Kumar Shukla son of Sharda
Prasad
Shukla,
resident
of
Koraiya,
Udaipur, on the basis of power of attorney
executed by Chandan Singh alias Chandra
Pal Singh whereas Ram Kumar Shukla
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Chandra Pal
Singh and not Chandan Singh.

30. It was further submitted that
even though the land already vested with
the State but Chandan Singh did not
implead the State or the Gaon Sabha as a
party and it is only at a later stage, DGC
(Revenue) filed an application that the
State and the Gaon Sabha be made a party.
Moroever, as soon as the order was passed
by the Consolidation Officer directing to
record the name of Chandan Singh alias
Chandra Pal Singh as a successor of Ruda
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh, he immediately executed gift-deeds
in respect of land in dispute to Ram Kumar
Shukla
and
his
family
members.
Significantly, Ram Kumar Shukla is the
same person whose son had separately filed
objections before the Consolidation Officer
and Chandan Singh had also executed his
power of attorney in favour of Ram Kumar
Shukla who appeared and contested the
appeal of Prema Devi on behalf of Chandan
Singh. This clearly indicates that by
forming caucus of individuals attempt was
made to usurp the Government land.

31. Another fact was pointed out
that the gift-deeds which were executed in
favour of Ram Kumar Shukla and his
family members but the petitioner were
witnessed by Devakar Prashad son of
Chandrika Prasad, who is the very same
person who had filed the affidavit as
Pairokar of the petitioner in the instant
petition. It was pointed out that as soon as
Chandan Singh had executed gift-deeds in
favour of Ram Kumar Shukla and his
family members, he had no locus to
maintain the instant petition. It was also
stated that Ram Kumar Shukla has long
criminal history of about 16 cases and he
yields a terror in the area in question and he
is also responsible for grabbing the land of
the Government and the present petitioner
is being used as a front by him.

32. For the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it was submitted that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation after
taking note of the entire background had
recorded findings of fact that there was not
enough material to establish that Chandan
Singh was the nephew of Ruda Singh.
Moreover, at no point of time, the petitioner
had challenged the earlier order dated
17.09.1984 by which land vested in the
State and the said order remained intact,
hence, there was no challenge to the same,
accordingly, in an indirect manner, it was
not open for the petitioner to have usurped
the land in consolidation proceedings.

33. It was also urged that the
Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer of Consolidation did not take note
of the fact that Chandan Singh had initially
filed his objections under Section 9-A(2) of
the Act of 1953 on the basis of succession
and later filed another set of objections
claiming on the basis of Will of Ruda Singh
while the said Will never saw light of the
day in the entire proceedings and his
conduct was also suspicious and no
evidence
was
led
to
establish
the
relationship of the petitioner with Ruda
Singh.

34. For all the aforesaid reasons,
the petitioner who is merely a front created
to usurp and grab the property of the State
has no right, title or interest in the property,
hence, the writ petition deserved to be
dismissed.

35. Learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the petitioner in rejoinder had
additionally submitted that any criminal
history against Ram Kumar Shukla cannot
be read against the petitioner to discredit
his right as well as it can have no impact on
the relationship of the petitioner with Ruda
Singh.

36. He urged that the petitioner
had assailed the order by which the land in
question vested with the State, but the
revision was abated on account of the
consolidation operations in the village,
hence, it is not correct to state that the
petitioner had not assailed the order and the
findings recorded by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation are perverse and against
3 All. Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur & Ors.
595
the material on record. Consequently, the
writ petition be allowed.

37. Shri Shraswat Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing for the privaterespondent No.5 had submitted that since
the private-respondent No.5 did not have
any personal right regarding the title of the
property in dispute, hence, they do not
propose to file any counter affidavit. Thus,
for the said reason, the said privaterespondent No.5 had no submission to
make.

38. The Court has heard learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the
material on record.

39. It is an undisputed fact that the
property in dispute was recorded in the
name of Ruda Singh. It is also not disputed
that Ruda Singh died on 12.01.1979. Upon
his death, two sets of claims were made,
firstly by Nathu Singh son of Pahalwan
Singh, who claimed on the basis of Will
said to have been executed by Ruda Singh
and secondly the claims were raised by
Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat
Singh, the three sons of Badri, who claimed
to be the nephews (Bhanja) of Ruda Singh.

40.

This
relationship
was
disclosed by the petitioner only in his
rejoinder affidavit indicating that Ruda
Singh son of Bhujja Singh had two
sisters, namely, Smt. Sita Singh and Smt.
Parvati Singh. The present petitioner is
the son of Fakirey Singh who had
solemnized second marriage with Smt.
Sita Singh (sister of Ruda Singh). The
other sister, namely, Smt. Parvati Singh
was married to Bardi Singh and in this
way the other nephews namely, Raghubar
Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh
being sons of Badri had claimed the
property of Ruda Singh in their capacity
of being the nephews of Ruda Singh.

41. From a perusal of short
counter affidavit, filed by the State, it
would reveal that mutation proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act of 1901 were
initiated, wherein the name of Nathu
Singh son of Pahalwan Singh was
recorded as the legatee of Ruda Singh,
whereas Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh
and Bharat Singh sons of Badri Singh
were recorded on the basis of succession
being the nephews of Ruda Singh
(Bhanja).

42. It will be relevant to notice at
this stage that this is first litigation which
commenced in 1979 relating to the
property of Ruda Singh. At that given
point of time, there was no mention
regarding the petitioner being the nephew
of Ruda Singh. Neither Smt. Sita Singh
contested the proceedings for her son
(assuming if Chandan Singh would have
been a minor). Moreover, Raghubar
Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh
while contesting the proceedings also did
not disclose that there was another
nephew (son of Smt. Sita Singh). This
first round of litigation is said to be
contested by the alleged children of Smt.
Parvati Singh (the other sister of Ruda
Singh). After the order dated 19.07.1979
was passed in proceedings under Section
34 of the Act of 1901, thereafter,
proceedings were initiated at the behest
of the State under Section 194 of the Act
of 1950 which came to be decided on
17.09.1984 vesting the land in the State.

43. Significantly, neither Nathu
Singh, who claimed rights to the property
of Ruda Singh on the basis of Will nor the
three sons of Smt. Parvati Singh, namely,
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat
Singh
challenged
the
order
dated
17.09.1984. A natural corollary which
follows logic is the fact that in case if right of
any party is extinguished, necessarily the
aggrieved would raise objection. However, in
this case, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and
Bharat
Singh
though
contested
the
proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of
1950 which came to be decided in favour of
the State vide order dated 17.09.1984, but
they never assailed the said order in any
further proceedings. Thus, insofar as the
persons who were interested in the property
of Ruda Singh and had raised their claims
being the legatee of Ruda Singh and his
nephews they all did not assail the order
dated 17.09.1984 and apparently it can be
deduced that they abandoned their rights in
favour of the State.

44.

Undisputedly,
since
17.09.1984, the land in question remained
recorded in the name of the State and no
person came forward assailing the said
order or the entry in the revenue records in
the name of the State at the given time.

45. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner could not indicate as to why the
present petitioner who alleged himself to be
the nephew (Bhanja) of Ruda Singh did not
ever put his claim at the first point of time
upon the death of Ruda Singh in 1979 or even
after the order dated 17.09.1984 was passed.
Merely a vague assertion was made by the
petitioner that as and when he became aware
of the said order, the same was challenged,
however from the material available on record,
it indicates that the present petitioner did not
assail the order dated 17.09.1984 at all.

46. The record indicates that in
Para-6 of the writ petition, the petitioner
has stated as under:-
"6. That on coming to
know about the order, the petitioner
filed
a
revision
before
the
Additional
Commissioner-I,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow.
During the pendency of the
revision, the village was notified
under
Section
4
of
U.P.
Consolidation and Holdings Act
(hereinafter called) the Act on
22.7.1995 and the proceedings
were
pending
before
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation,
hence,
on
22.2.2022, an order was passed
for abatement of the revision filed
by the petitioner against the order
dated 17.9.1984 passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Sitapur. A
copy of the order dated 22.2.2022
passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial-I),
Lucknow Division, Lucknow is
filed herewith as Annexure No.1."

47. In context of the aforesaid
paragraph, if the order passed by the
Additional
Commissioner
dated
22.02.2022, marked as Annexure No.1, is
perused, it would indicate that the said
revision was filed in the year 2018
against an order dated 25.11.2017 which
was merely a consequential order in
terms whereof the mutation entry in the
name of the State was made. However,
by
challenging
the
order
dated
25.11.2017 without assailing the order
dated 17.09.1984, no benefit can be
derived by the petitioner. In light of this
fact the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel that the order dated 17.09.1984
was challenged by the petitioner appears
to be baseless and it does not find any
corroboration from the record before the
Court.
3 All. Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur & Ors.
597
48. This Court notices a fact that
despite the petitioner having filed his
rejoinder affidavit to the short counter
affidavit filed by the [State wherein it was
stated that the petitioner has not assailed
the order dated 17.09.1984], an opportunity
was available to the petitioner to indicate
whether the said order dated 17.09.1984
was challenged and if so, a copy of the
revision could have been the best evidence
available with the petitioner, but the same
has not been brought on record. In view
thereof and in absence of any material
brought before this Court, the submission
of the learned Senior Counsel that the
petitioner had assailed the order dated
17.09.1984 pales into insignificance rather
it appears to have been advanced before
this Court wrongly and without verifying
the record.

49. There is another way to look at
the aforesaid facts. Once the petitioner
knew that the village in question was under
consolidation operations since 1995 and the
petitioner had filed his two separate
objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act
of 1953, one set on the basis of succession
in the year 2004 and later on the basis of a
Will of Ruda Singh in the year 2013 then
what was his justification to file the
revisions
before
the
Additional
Commissioner only in 2017 after the
Consolidation Officer had allowed his
objections and that too challenging the
consequential order and not the primary
order dated 17.09.1984. Moreover, he knew
his objections before the Consolidation
Officer were allowed and yet he did not
inform
the
Court
of
Additional
Commissioner regarding the order passed
by the Consolidation Officer and it is only
the DGC (Revenue), who informed the
Court that an appeal was pending that the
Additional
Commissioner
abated
the
proceedings. This appears to be a ruse
resorted to by the petitioner and the said
fact cannot come to the aid of the
petitioner.

50. In light of this fact, the order
dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Additional
Commissioner abating the proceedings
where the challenge was made to the order
dated 25.11.2017 and not to the order dated
17.09.1984 cannot come to the rescue of
the petitioner and the basic premise of the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel
looses its substratum.

51. At the cost of repetition, it is
noticed that since 1979 till the year 2018,
there was never any challenge made by
Chandan Singh and there has been no
cogent explanation regarding the same
either in the petition or in the rejoinder
affidavit and not even during the course of
submissions made before this Court.

52. Learned Senior Counsel also
could not demonstrate the reasons and the
purpose regarding two separate sets of
objections filed by Chandan Singh under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 rather the
same were concealed. In the first set of
objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of the
Act of 1953 dated 09.12.2004, a copy
thereof has been brought on record at
running page 40-41 of the short counter
affidavit filed by the State wherein
Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh
son of Fakirey Singh is shown to be 50
years of age. Moreover, the pedigree shown
in the said objections is quite different to
the pedigree given by the petitioner in the
rejoinder affidavit filed before this Court.
Moreover, the Aadhar Card which has been
brought on record by the petitioner is in the
name Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal
Singh whereas his date of birth is shown as
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20.08.1973. It has also not been explained
by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that in case if the name of the
petitioner
was
Chandan
Singh
alias
Chandra Pal Singh, but in the identities
which have been filed Chandan Singh is
missing and the name has been shown as
"Chandra Pal Singh" with a completely
different date of birth i.e. if the date of birth
as mentioned in his objections under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 is seen,
his age is shown as 50 years in 2004 which
necessarily would imply i.e. his date of
birth would be around 1954 and in case if
the Aadhar Card is taken note of then his
date of birth is 20.08.1973 and there is a
huge gap of 20 years between the two.

53. In addition, the power of
attorney executed by Chandan Singh in
favour of Ram Kumar Shukla son of
Sharda Prasad Shukla also uses the word
'Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh'.
The Vakalatnama which is brought on
record, which is at running page 199 of the
short counter affidavit, filed by the State,
also indicates the signatures in the name of
Chandra Pal Singh which has been written
quite differently on the power of attorney
which has been brought on record at
running Page-193 of the short counter
affidavit, filed by the State, indicating the
writing of full name Chandan Singh alias
Chandra Pal Singh. In the same vein, if the
objections filed by the petitioner on
19.06.2013 is seen which is at running page
200 of the short counter affidavit, it would
indicate that Chandan Singh claimed rights
in the property of Ruda Singh on the basis
of a Will. However, despite putting to the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner no
reasonable answer was given. Significantly
though this document was placed on record
along with the short counter affidavit and
thereafter the petitioner had filed his
rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit,
but nowhere any denial or explanation was
given for the aforesaid discrepancies,
which are writ large on the record .

54. In the aforesaid context, the
first submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that
the only reason which prevailed in the mind
of Deputy Director of Consolidation while
passing the impugned order was the fact
that the order dated 17.09.1984 is till intact
and was not challenged was incorrect turns
out to be misconceived and is turned down.

55. Now once the order dated
17.09.1984 by which the land vested in the
State
remained
intact
whether
the
consolidation authorities could have taken a
different view also needs to be examined. It
is no doubt true that once the village is
brought under the consolidation operations,
any party aggrieved can raise objection
which is to be considered by the authorities
and in this scenario while the village came
under
consolidation
operations,
the
petitioner filed his objections on the basis
of succession.

56. In order to claim rights on the
basis of succession it was the bounden duty
of the petitioner to prove the fact that at the
time of death of Ruda Singh in the year
1979, who were the heirs present and alive
in the preferential order of succession as
per Section 171 of the Act of 1950 and how
the petitioner alone could seek precedence
over others or that the petitioner was the
sole
surviving
heir.
This
necessarily
required the relationship between petitioner
and Ruda Singh to be established with the
fresh family tree and date of death of the
heirs to determine the actual preferential
heir alive at the time of death of Ruda
Singh.
3 All. Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh Vs. D.D.C. Sitapur & Ors.
599
57. To prove the aforesaid fact, the
petitioner merely filed a certificate, a copy
of which has been filed as Annexure No.5
to the writ petition. Apart from this
document, there was no other documentary
evidence filed by the petitioner.

58. From a perusal of the said
certificate, it reveals that it is issued by
Jaidevi, who is said to be the Pradhan.
However, the said document is undated.
The said certificate states that the said
Pradhan namely Jaidevi certifies that Ruda
Singh son of Bhujja Singh, resident of
Gram Para, Pargana, Tehsil and District
Sitapur had died. He had two brothers,
namely, Bhangat Singh and Ujjagar Singh,
who died issueless and unmarried. Ruda
Singh also had two sisters namely, Parvati
Singh, who had no children alive and
Parvati Singh had also died. The other
sister Sita Singh, had also died. She had
one son Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal
Singh and he is real nephew of Ruda Singh,
who is the lawful heir of Ruda Singh and
Ruda Singh has no other heir.

59. The learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner could not justify as to how
the Pradhan would have the authority to
issue such a certificate. Even if at all the
certificate is noticed, it would be found that
it was undated and is vague. There is no
corroboration of the facts mentioned in the
said certificate as issued by the Pradhan
Jaidevi. There is no reference to the date of
death of any of the persons so mentioned in
the said certificate. Moreover, the manner
in which the said certificate has been drawn
does not inspire confidence, both in terms
of facts or even in context of its relevancy
and admissibility.

60. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner could not demonstrate that
actually when Ruda Singh died in the year
1979 yet there was no death certificate
issued by any Competent Authority nor any
relevant entries from the Parivar Register
were brought on record, then under what
provisions such a certificate was brought
on record as Annexure No.5 and how it
could be relied upon and could be made the
basis of a finding, especially when the date
of death was not mentioned in the alleged
certificate which is being heavily relied upon
by the petitioner for the purpose of
establishing the relationship of the petitioner
with late Ruda Singh. There is no mention
regarding the date of death of two brothers of
Ruda Singh. This assumes significance for the
reasons that the names of two brothers namely,
Bhangat Singh and Ujjagar Singh have not
been mentioned in the pedigree which has
been given by the petitioner in his rejoinder
affidavit.