# Hari Nam Singh & Ors v. D.D.C., Unnao & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 841
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-nam-singh-ors-v-d-d-c-unnao-ors-46969
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Consolidation - U.P.
Tenancy
Act
-
Section
205
-
U.P.
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-
Sections 11(1), 48 - Consolidation of
Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A.

In the present case there is no clear
evidence and issues of title and possession
were not contested and there are no
concurrent findings of all the courts below.
This Court also found that the Consolidation
Officer has allowed the objection without
any evidence or sufficient material and
contrary to contest. (Para 15)

The petitioners had not contested the issues
regarding his claim as actual tenure holder and
Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the basis of
adverse possession. The only issue which was
contested was, as to whether there is grove on the
land in dispute? if yes, then effect? Therefore this
court is of the view that the Consolidation officer
had wrongly and illegally considered the claim of
the petitioners on the land in dispute and declared
the petitioners not only the grove holder but
Bhumidhar with transferable rights u/s 18(1)(e) of
the Act of 1952 merely on the basis of a copy of
Khasra of 1347 Fasli and on the basis of alleged
circumstantial evidence and the report of the
Advocate Commissioner which are also not in
favour of the petitioners and without any cogent
evidence. (Para 12)

Since the grove was found on the land in
dispute and the petitioners had not contested
the issues of actual tenure holder and adverse
possession, it has rightly been recorded in the
name of Gram Sabha. (Para 13)

Since the petitioners' claim was not sustainable,
the opposite party no. 2, who is claiming half of
the land of Plot No. 798 on the basis of
possession alongwith petitioners is also not
sustainable. (Para 14)

B. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 11(C) - U/s 11(C), it is provided
that if CO., S.O.C., D.D.C. while hearing a
case comes to the conclusion that any land
vests in the State Government or Gaon
Sabha then it shall be recorded in the name
of State or Gaon Sabha even though no
objection, appeal or revision has been filed
by State or Gaon Sabha. Therefore even if the
Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection, appeal or
revision and the Revisional Authority, while
examining the case u/s 48, finds that the land
belongs to Gaon Sabha, it can direct to record in
the name of Gaon Sabha in accordance with law.
(Para 17, 18)

C. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 48 - For exercising the power of
revisional jurisdiction, party aggrieved
may or may not invoke S.48 and in
appropriate case, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation can suo moto exercise his
powers of revisional jurisdiction and he
may make such order as he thinks fit.
Therefore also, even if, the Goan Sabha had
not made any application or revision and the
Deputy Direc

## Text

3 All. Hari Nam Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Unnao & Ors.
841
the mother of the petitioner is not trust
worthy and there is no provision that the
Sub-registrar is obliged to record the
majority or minority of the executant. This
Court is in agreement with the findings
recorded by the revisional court and does
not find any illegality or error in it. As such
the sale deed was not void and the mutation
can not be denied. So far as the remaining
amount Rs.2,000/- is concerned which is
being said not to have been paid to the
petitioner, though it does not seem to be the
case of the petitioner, the learned revisional
court
has
rightly
provided
that
the
petitioner can claim the same by filing a
suit.

18. So far as the question of alleged
concurrent
finding
recorded
by
the
Consolidation Officer and the Settlement
Officer Consolidation is concerned this
court is of the view that there is no
concurrent
finding
because
the
Consolidation Officer had accepted that the
petitioner was major at the time of
execution of sale deed but rejected the
application merely on the ground that the
total sale consideration has not been paid
whereas
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation, without dealing the issue of
the age of the petitioner at the time of
execution of sale deed, recorded a finding
of execution of sale deed by presenting
some other person on the basis of tallying
the thumb impression taken before him
without any expert opinion and also
considering the ground of mentioning of
lesser cost of property, while it was not the
case of petitioner. The mother of the
petitioner had also not taken this objection.
On the the other hand this Court finds that
none of the Court's below has recorded any
finding that the petitioner was not major at
the time of execution of sale deed.
Therefore in fact the concurrent view of the
Court's below is that the petitoner was
major at the time of executon of sale deed.
This court is also in agreement with this
view. Therefore the case of Mohori Bibee
and Another vs. Dharmodas Ghose; (1903)
ILR 30P.C.539, relied by learned counsel
for the petitioner is of no assistance to him
because it has been held that the contract
made by a minor would be void whereas
the petitioner was major on the date of
execution of sale deed.

19. In view of above this court is of
the considered opinion that the learned
Revisional court has rightly considered and
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
19.10.1993 in accordance with law by a
reasoned and speaking order. There is no
illegality or error in it. Hence this writ
petition is misconceived and devoid of any
merit and liable to be dismissed.

20. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation Nos. 543 of 2006 & 862 of 2006

Hari Nam Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C., Unnao & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nirankar Nath Jaiswal, Prashant Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., R.N. Gupta, Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Consolidation - U.P.
Tenancy
Act
-
Section
205
-
U.P.
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-
Sections 11(1), 48 - Consolidation of
Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 109-A.

In the present case there is no clear
evidence and issues of title and possession
were not contested and there are no
concurrent findings of all the courts below.
This Court also found that the Consolidation
Officer has allowed the objection without
any evidence or sufficient material and
contrary to contest. (Para 15)

The petitioners had not contested the issues
regarding his claim as actual tenure holder and
Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the basis of
adverse possession. The only issue which was
contested was, as to whether there is grove on the
land in dispute? if yes, then effect? Therefore this
court is of the view that the Consolidation officer
had wrongly and illegally considered the claim of
the petitioners on the land in dispute and declared
the petitioners not only the grove holder but
Bhumidhar with transferable rights u/s 18(1)(e) of
the Act of 1952 merely on the basis of a copy of
Khasra of 1347 Fasli and on the basis of alleged
circumstantial evidence and the report of the
Advocate Commissioner which are also not in
favour of the petitioners and without any cogent
evidence. (Para 12)

Since the grove was found on the land in
dispute and the petitioners had not contested
the issues of actual tenure holder and adverse
possession, it has rightly been recorded in the
name of Gram Sabha. (Para 13)

Since the petitioners' claim was not sustainable,
the opposite party no. 2, who is claiming half of
the land of Plot No. 798 on the basis of
possession alongwith petitioners is also not
sustainable. (Para 14)

B. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 11(C) - U/s 11(C), it is provided
that if CO., S.O.C., D.D.C. while hearing a
case comes to the conclusion that any land
vests in the State Government or Gaon
Sabha then it shall be recorded in the name
of State or Gaon Sabha even though no
objection, appeal or revision has been filed
by State or Gaon Sabha. Therefore even if the
Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection, appeal or
revision and the Revisional Authority, while
examining the case u/s 48, finds that the land
belongs to Gaon Sabha, it can direct to record in
the name of Gaon Sabha in accordance with law.
(Para 17, 18)

C. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 48 - For exercising the power of
revisional jurisdiction, party aggrieved
may or may not invoke S.48 and in
appropriate case, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation can suo moto exercise his
powers of revisional jurisdiction and he
may make such order as he thinks fit.
Therefore also, even if, the Goan Sabha had
not made any application or revision and the
Deputy Director of Consolidation finds that the
land in dispute vests in the Gaon Sabha, State
Government or any local authority he may
make an order to vest it in the same. (Para 19,
20)

The Revisional Authority after considering the
pleadings and evidence has found that the land
in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj therefore
even if the orders passed by the lower
authorities were not sustainable and quashed,
no fruitful purpose would have been served by
remanding the case when the Revisional
Authority itself has authority to pass the order
under the statute. (Para 21)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Dheeraj & anr. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar & ors., 2009
(107) RD 695 (Para 18)

2.
Ram
Gopal
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Bahraich
&
ors.,
W.P.
Consolidation No. 33557 of 2018 (Para 20)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Gram Sabha, Dhaniya Mau Vs Ram Manohar
(Dead) by LRs & ors., (2010) 12 SCC 384 (Para
6, 15)

2.
Muneshwar
(Dead)
By
LRs
Vs
Raja
Mohammad Khan & ors., (1998) 6 SCC 582
(Para 6, 15)
3 All. Hari Nam Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Unnao & Ors.
843
3. Hasan Ali & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 1992
Supp (2) SCC 70 (Para 6, 15)

Present petitions challenge the judgment
and order dated 20.05.2006, passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and opposite parties
no.5 to 8 in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of
2006
(here-in-after
referred
as
the
petitioners), Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in
Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and
petitioner in Writ Petition No.862 (Cons) of
2006 (here-in-after referred as the opposite
party no.2) and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha in both
the writ petitions. The office of the learned
Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice
for opposite party no.1 in Writ Petition
No.543 (Cons) of 2006 and for opposite
parties no.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.862
(Cons) of 2006.

2. The Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of
2006 has been filed challenging the judgment
and order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation and Writ
Petition No. 862 (Cons) of 2006 challenging
the
same
judgment
and
order
dated
20.05.2006 to the extent of rejecting the title
of the petitioners on trees and boring well as
well as directing the Plot No.798 to be
recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The
dispute in Writ Petition No.543 (Cons) of
2006 relates to Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509
whereas the dispute in Writ Petition No.862
(Cons) of 2006 relates only to the extent of
half share in Plot No.798.

3. On publication of records the father
of the petitioners late Mahipal Singh had
filed objection claiming the land of the Plot
Nos.642, 798, 853/1, 853/2, 540 and 509 as
his grove land and under his occupation
and possession since the time prior to
Zamidari
Abolition.
The
Assistant
Consolidation Officer transmitted it to the
Consolidation Officer on an application
moved
by
the
petitioners.
The
Consolidation Officer after considering the
objection and the evidence adduced before
it rejected the claim of the petitioners in
regard to Plot Nos.853 and 540 and
allowed in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798 and
509 and declared him as grove holder
Bhumidhar with transferable rights under
Section 205 of U.P. Tenancy Act read with
Section 18 (1) (e) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred
as Act of 1953) since 1362 Fasli and
directed
to
remove
the
entry
of
Usar/Banzar and record the name of the
petitioners in the revenue records by means
of the order dated 07.02.1996. On an
application moved by the petitioners, under
Rule 109-A of the Consolidation of
Holdings
Rules,
1954
(here-in-after
referred
as
Rules
of
1954),
the
Consolidation Officer directed to make
entry in the revenue records by means of
the order dated 13.02.1998.

4. The opposite party no.2; Barlam
Singh filed an application for recall of the
order dated 13.02.1998 passed on the
application
under
Rule
109-A.
The
application was rejected by means of the
order dated 08.07.2004. Being aggrieved
the opposite party no.2 filed Appeal
No.1548 under Section 11(1) of the Act of
1953 before the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation which was dismissed by
means of the order dated 08.12.2004. The
opposite party no.2 had also preferred an
application for recall of the order dated
07.02.1996 passed under Section 9 (A)(2)
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Act of 1953 by the Consolidation
Officer, which was rejected on 09.11.2004.
The opposite party no.2 preferred three
revisions before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
after
considering
the
revisions and the material on records found
that the land in dispute is of the Gram
Samaj which was not disputed by the
parties, allowed the revisions partly by
means of the order dated 20.05.2006 in the
interest of the Gram Sabha and directed the
Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 to be recorded
in the account of the Gram Sabha as it was
recorded earlier. Hence, the present writ
petitions were filed challenging the same.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners was that the petitioners had
filed the objections under Section 9(A) 2 of
the Act of 1953 and the evidence was also
adduced. After considering the same the
objection in regard to Plot Nos.642, 798
and 509 was allowed and the petitioners
were rightly declared the grove holder
Bhumidhar with transferable rights and the
name of the petitioners was recorded in the
revenue records under Rule 109- A of the
Rules of 1954. The opposite party no.2 had
filed highly time barred and misconceived
application for recall of the order passed
under Rule 109-A which was rightly
rejected. The application for recall against
the order dated 07.02.1996 passed under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 was also
rejected in accordance with law. The appeal
was also dismissed having no merit. The
Revisional Authority, without considering
that no application or revision was filed by
the Gaon Sabha and without affording any
opportunity to the petitioners, partly
allowed the revision and set-aside the
orders challenged before it, but instead of
remanding the case, in an arbitrary and
illegal manner directed to record the Plot
Nos.642, 798 and 509 in the account of the
Gram Sabha without any application,
revision or basis. Therefore the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law
and is liable to be quashed and the writ
petition is liable to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied on Gram Sabha, Dhaniya Mau
Vs. Ram Manohar (Dead) by LRs and
Others; (2010) 12 SCC 384, Muneshwar
(Dead) By LRs Vs. Raja Mohammad
Khan and Others; (1998) 6 SCC 582 and
Hasan Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P.
and Others; 1992 Supp (2) SCC 70.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 had submitted that the
opposite party no.2 was in possession since
prior to the Zamidari Abolition alongwith
petitioners on Plot No.798 (new number of
which is 960 Kha) therefore he was also
entitled for half share in Plot No.798 but
the petitioners had filed the objection
without impleading the opposite party no.2.
The
Consolidation
Officer
had
also,
without issuing any notice or affording
opportunity to the opposite party no.2,
passed the order on 07.02.1996 and
thereafter got the same implemented by
means of the order dated 13.02.1998. After
coming to know about the order dated
13.02.1998, the opposite party no.2 filed
the restoration application which was
rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
He had filed an application for recall of the
order dated 07.02.1996 also passed by the
Consolidation Officer but the same was
also rejected in arbitrary and illegal
manner. The appeal was also rejected.
Therefore three revisions were filed.
Learned
Revisional
Authority,
though
found that the orders challenged in the
revisions were not sustainable in the eyes
of law and set-aside the same but without
3 All. Hari Nam Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Unnao & Ors.
845
any application or revision of the Gaon
Sabha directed to record the Plot No.798
also in the account of the Gram Sabha.
Therefore
the
order
passed
by
the
Revisional Authority is not sustainable to
the extent of the direction to record the Plot
No.798 in the account of Gram Sabha and
the same is liable to be quashed.

8. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that
the name of the petitioners was not
recorded in the revenue records on the date
of vesting and thereafter in 1356 and 1359
Fasli also. The petitioners and the opposite
party no.2 never raised any objection. It
was
only
when
the
consolidation
proceedings
started,
father
of
the
petitioners filed the objection. He has failed
to prove that he was entitled for the land in
dispute or his possession was there. He also
submitted that the lease of grove could not
have been given by the Zamidar. The
Consolidation Officer, without any proof,
had allowed the objection of the petitioners
in regard to the plots in question. The
Revisional Authority has rightly passed the
order in accordance with law. There is no
illegality or infirmity in the revisional order
impugned in the present writ petitions. The
writ petitions are misconceived and lacks
merit and are liable to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused orders and the record.

10. The dispute decided by the
Revisional Authority is in regard to the
Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509. The objection
raised by the petitioners in regard to Plot
Nos.853 and 504 was already rejected by
the Consolidation Officer which was not
challenged by the petitioners. The order
passed by the Consolidation Officer
indicates that the claim made by the
petitioners was set up on the ground that
the Plot Nos.642, 798 and 509 were given
by the Zamidar to the petitioners for
planting grove and with the permission of
the Zamidar the grove was planted but
the Consolidation Officer found that there
is no evidence to this effect. However
allowed the objection in regard to Plot
Nos.642, 798 and 509 merely stating that
the statement of the petitioners is proved
by the circumstantial evidence and old
grove on the basis of spot inspection. The
spot inspection was got done on an
application
of
the
petitioners.
In
pursuance
thereof
a
report
dated
06.10.1989
was
submitted
by
the
Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate
Commissioner
found
trees
on
Plot
Nos.642, 798 and 509 and also found that
the trees are so densed that the agriculture
is not possible on the plots as such the
Advocate Commissioner had only found
that there is grove on the plots in question
but
there
is
no
report
regarding
possession of the petitioners or the
opposite party no.2 on the said plots or
the grove. The petitioners had also filed
only copy of Khasra No.1347 Fasli and
some demand slips of irrigation and
receipt of payment of revenue but it was
not proved that they were of the same
land therefore the Consolidation Officer
has recorded a categorical finding that the
petitioners are not entitled for any benefit
of the same.

11. The Consolidation Officer had
made three issues which are as under:-

"१- क्ा िादी वििादग्रस्त भूवम का असल
खातेदार र्ै जैसी की उसकी आिवत्त र्ै ?

२- क्ा स्थल िर वििादग्रस्त भूवम बाग़ र्ै?
यवद र्ाूँ तो प्रभाि ?
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

३- क्ा िादी वििादग्रस्त भूवम का कब्ज़ा
मुख़ालफाना के आिार िर संक्रमणीय भूवमिर
र्ै ?"

12. The petitioners had not contested
the issues no.1 and 3 which were regarding
his claim as actual tenure holder and
Bhumidhar with transferable rights on the
basis of adverse possession. The only issue
no.2 was contested which was as to
whether there is grove on the land in
dispute? if yes, then effect? As such the
petitioners had left their claim on the plots
in dispute as actual tenure holder or on the
basis of adverse possession, therefore only
it was to be decided as to whether there is
any grove on the land in dispute or not and
what would be the effect of the grove.
Therefore this court is of the view that the
Consolidation officer had wrongly and
illegally considered the claim of the
petitioners on the land in dispute and
declared the petitioners not only the grove
holder but Bhumidhar with transferable
rights under Section 18 (1) (e) of the Act of
1952 merely on the basis of a copy of
Khasra of 1347 Fasli and on the basis of
alleged circumstantial evidence and the
report of the Advocate Commissioner
which are also not in favour of the
petitioners
and
without
any
cogent
evidence.

13. The Revisional Authority, while
considering the revisions, found that the
land in dispute is of the Gram Samaj which
is admitted to both the parties. This finding
has not been challenged however a plea has
been taken that the opposite party no.1 has
also incorrectly appreciated the evidences
on record and has incorrectly held that no
body can be declared as the owner of the
trees planted over the land belonging to
Gaon Sabha but failed to disclose in any
manner that the land in dispute is not of the
Gram Sabha. In the arguments advanced
before this Court also learned counsel for
the petitioners and the opposite party no.2
could not show that the land in dispute does
not belong to Gram Samaj. Therefore since
the grove was found on the land in dispute
and the petitioners had not contested the
issues of actual tenure holder and adverse
possession, it has rightly beem recorded in
the name of Gram Sabha.

14. So far as the claim of the opposite
party no.2 is concerned, this Court is of the
view that since the petitioners' claim was
not sustainable, the opposite party no.2,
who is claiming half of the land of Plot
No.798
on
the
basis
of
possession
alongwith
petitioners
is
also
not
sustainable.

15. So far as the cases relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are
concerned, this Court is of the view that
they are not applicable on the facts and
circumstances of the present case because
in the case of Gram Sabha, Dhaniya Mau
Vs. Ram Manohar (Dead) by LRs and
Others; (2010) 12 SCC 384, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that concurrent
finding of fact could not have been
interfered by accepting the single piece of
evidence. Similar is the judgment passed in
the case of Muneshwar (Dead) By LRs
Vs. Raja Mohammad Khan and Others;
(1998) 6 SCC 582, in which it has been
held that the concurrent finding should not
have been interfered in the writ jurisdiction
in the face of the clear evidence of
possession and entries in the records of
right. Similar view has been taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hasan Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P.
and Others; 1992 Supp (2) SCC 70 and
did not agree with the contrary conclusion
by the High Court in face of the clear
3 All. Hari Nam Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Unnao & Ors.
847
evidence as against the concurrent finding
recorded
on
the
basis
of
correct
appreciation of records and evidence. In the
present case there is no clear evidence and
issues of title and possession were not
contested and there are no concurrent
finding of all the courts below. This Court
also found that the Consolidation Officer
has allowed the objection without any
evidence or sufficient material and contrary
to contest.

16. The plea of the learned counsel
for the petitioners and opposite party no.2
that the Gaon Sabha has neither made any
application nor filed revision therefore the
land could not have been directed to be
recorded in the name of the Gram Samaj is
totally misconceived and baseless. In this
regard Section 11(C) of the Act of 1953 is
very clear, which is extracted below:-

"[11-C. In the course of hearing of an
objection under Section 9-A or an appeal
under Section 11, or in proceedings under
Section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the
Director of Consolidation, as the case may
be, may direct that any land which vests in
the State Government or the Gaon Sabha
or any other local body or authority may be
recorded in its name, even though no
objection, appeal or revision has been filed
by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or
authority.]"

17. In view of Section 11 (C) in
proceedings under Section 48, the Director
of Consolidation may direct that any land
which vests in the Gaon Sabha may be
recorded in its name even though no
objection or appeal or revision has been
filed by the Gaon Sabha. Therefore even if
the Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection,
appeal or revision and the Revisional
Authority, while examining the case under
Section 48, finds that the land belongs to
Gaon Sabha, it can direct to record in the
name of Gaon Sabha in accordance with
law. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the Revisional Authority has not
committed any illegality or error in passing
the impugned order and directing to record
the land in dispute in the name of the Gaon
Sabha as it was recorded earlier.

18. This Court, in the case of Dheeraj
and Another Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gautam Budh Nagar and
Others; 2009 (107) RD 695, has held that
under
Section
11-C
of
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act it is
provided that if CO., S.O.C., D.D.C. while
hearing a case comes to the conclusion that
any land vests in the State Government or
Gaon Sabha then it shall be recorded in the
name of State or Gaon Sabha even though
no objection, appeal or revision has been
filed by State or Gaon Sabha.

19. Section 48 of the Act of 1953,
wherein the power of revision has been
provided, provides that the Director of
Consolidation may call for and examine the
record of any case decided or proceedings
taken by any subordinate authority for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the
regularity of the proceedings; or as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order passed by such authority in the case
or proceedings and may make such order in
the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. As
such this right is not vested in the party
concerned
to
invoke
the
revisional
jurisdiction rather the jurisdiction vests in
the Deputy Director of Consolidation to
call for or examine the record of any case
decided or proceeding drawn. So even if, a
party aggrieved has not invoked revisional
jurisdiction,
the
Deputy
Director
of
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation can suo moto exercise
powers of revisional jurisdiction and he
may make such order as he thinks fit.
Therefore also, even if, the Goan Sabha had
not made any application or revision and
the Deputy Director of Consolidation finds
that the land in dispute vests in the Gaon
Sabha, State Government or any local
authority he may make an order to vest it in
the same.

20. This Court in the case of Ram
Gopal
versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Bahraich and Others; W.P.
Consolidation No.33557 of 2018, while
considering the provisions of Section 11-C
and Section 48 of the Act of 1953 has also
held that for exercising the power of
revisional jurisdiction, party aggrieved may
or may not invoke Section 48 and in
appropriate case, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation can suo moto exercise his
powers of revisional jurisdiction. The
relevant portion is extracted below:-

"Section 11-C of the Act specifically
provides that in the course of hearing of an
objection under Section 9-A or an appeal
under Section 11 or revision petition under
Section 48, the consolidation authorities
may direct that any land which vests in the
State Government or Gaon Sabha may be
recorded in its name, even though no
objection, appeal or revision has been filed
by such Government or Gaon Sabha or the
local authorities is concerned. Section 11C is reproduced herein below:-

11C. In the course of hearing of
an objection under Section 9-A or an
appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings
under Section
48,
the
Consolidation
Officer,
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
or
the
Director
of
Consolidation, as the case may be, may
direct that any land which vests in the State
Government or the Gaon Sabha or any
other local body or authority may be
recorded in its name, even though no
objection, appeal or revision has been filed
by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or
authority.

Considering the nature of disputes
raised during the consolidation operations,
the legislature while enacting Section 11-C
of the Act was conscious of the functions to
be performed by the consolidation courts.
Section
11-C
was
inserted
by
the
legislature in the Act with a purpose and
the purpose is apparent.

There may be a situation where many
a times, on account of certain misgivings
and for certain other reasons, the Land
Management Committee or the Gram
Pradhan for certain reasons may ignore to
protect the interest of Gaon Sabha or the
property vested in State Government.

It is for the aforesaid purpose of
securing and protecting the land vested in
Gaon Sabha or State Government that the
legislature has consciously enacted Section
11-C of the Act and has thus cast a duty on
the
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement
Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to pass orders
recording such land in the name of State or
Gaon Sabha even though no objection or
appeal or revision under Section 9-A,
Section 11 or Section 48 is preferred by the
State Government or Gaon Sabha or the
local authority concerned.

It is settled law that right to appeal is
a statutory right which operates within the
four corners of the statute which confers
such right in a person or a party, however,
so far as the jurisdiction of revisional court
is concerned, specifically in the case of
revisional
court
created
under
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act which
exercises the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 48 of the said Act, it is not a right
3 All. Ayodhya (Died) substituted by LRs Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
849
vested in the party concerned to invoke the
revisional jurisdiction; rather Section 48
vests a jurisdiction in the Deputy Director
of Consolidation to call for or examine the
record of any case decided or proceedings
drawn. Thus for exercising of revisional
jurisdiction, a party aggrieved may or may
not
invoke
Section
48
and
in
an
appropriate case, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation can suo motu exercise his
powers of revisional jurisdiction."

21. The Revisional Authority after
considering the pleadings and evidence has
found that the land in dispute belongs to
Gram Samaj therefore even if the orders
passed by the lower authorities were not
sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose
would have been served by remanding the
case when the Revisional Authority itself has
authority to pass the order under the statute.

22. In view of above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that there is no
illegality or error in the impugned order
passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The writ petitions are misconceived and
devoid of any merit.

23. Both the writ petitions, are,
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A849
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 1877 of 1979

Ayodhya (Died) substituted by LRs
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.K. Verma, Ajay Sharma, D.K. Rastogi, S.C.
Misra, V. B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
R.N. Srivastava, Dilip Kumar Pandey, Yogendra
Nath Yadav

A. Civil Law - Consolidation - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9 - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Section 122-A - Code of Criminal
Procedure: Section 145 - One cannot
mature rights by adverse possession
on
Gaon
Sabha
land.
It
is
not
understandable as to how someone can
mature rights by adverse possession if his
name is not recorded continuously for a
period of ten years in the revenue records.
(Para 12)

In regard to the claim over the land in dispute
on the basis of alleged allotment by the Gaon
Sabha vide resolution dated 17.11.1963,
indicates that it is not an allotment. The Gaon
Sabha has only passed a resolution that it has
no objection in recording name of Shri
Ayodhya Prasad in 409, 410, 354, 353, 352
and there are trees of Aam, Mahua, Kathar,
Amrood and Babul etc. It does not indicate
even that these trees were planted by the
petitioners. Therefore it is not an allotment
and it is not approved by the Sub-Divisional
Officer also. (Para 14)

B. U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947- Section 34
- The Gaon Sabha cannot allot it's any
property to anybody because the property
is vested in Gram Panchayat u/s 34 of U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 in relation to
direction, management and control and it's
vesting in State is absolute. Therefore, the
Gram Panchayat cannot give it to anybody as
absolute right of ownership is not given to it.
(Para 15)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Sumit Kumar Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2002
SCC OnLine All 399; 93 RD 623 (Para 12)