# Jagbhan Singh & Ors v. Assistant Director of Consolidation & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 527
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-25
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1870 of 1981
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagbhan-singh-ors-v-assistant-director-of-consolidation-ors-53588
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Addl. C.S.C., Mr.
Achal Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to claim of Sirdari rights by
petitioners over Gaon Sabha land recorded as
Shreni-IV, on the basis of adverse possession,
and the validity of concurrent orders passed by
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation),
and
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation under SS. 9-A (2), 11(1), & 48 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
SS. 9-A (2), 11(1), 48 - U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 26 - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Consolidation-Claim of Sirdari
rights - Adverse possession against Gaon
Sabha land - Not maintainable - Evidence
- Failure to prove title and possession -
Jurisdiction
-
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation - Limited powers prior to
10.11.1980 amendment - Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 226 - Concurrent findings of fact -
No interference warranted.
Held: There was no illegality in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in passing the impugned order
dated 13.10.1980 - Consolidation Officer "has
properly exercised the jurisdiction as provided
under Rule 26 of the U.P. C.H. Rules -
Petitioners failed to prove title or possession
over the plot in question - Plea of adverse
possession cannot be sustained against Gaon
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sabha property - Consequently, the concurrent
findings of all three consolidation courts
warranted no interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Petitioners not entitled
to be recorded as Sirdar - concurrent findings of
fact sustained - Petition dismissed - No order as
to costs. (Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
None specifically cited in the judgment

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954; U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,

## Text

7 All. Jagbhan Singh & Ors. Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation & Ors.
527
statement of the petitioner recorded during
Police investigation. The witness examined
has only stated that petitioner has accepted
his
guilt
before
the
Police
during
investigation, therefore, such nature of
evidence would be failed if tested at the
anvil of "preponderance of probability".

34. In aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of the opinion that it is a case of no
evidence. The impugned order is failed in
the test of preponderance of probability
since it was based only on alleged
confessional statement made by petitioner
before Police, which cannot be read in its
entirety
against
the
petitioner
in
a
disciplinary
proceeding
without
any
independent support. There is absolutely no
material on record that petitioner was
directly or indirectly committed alleged
fraud. Therefore, facts of present case
warrants interference.

35. In the result, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned order of Disciplinary
Authority dated 20.06.2018 as also the
undated order passed in the Appeal, are
hereby set aside and its legal consequence
shall follow. The respondents can proceed
afresh against the petitioner or may wait for
outcome of the criminal trial, which is still
pending.

36. So far as relief with regard to back
wages is concerned, the Court is of the
view that despite the principle of "no work
no pay", petitioner is entitled for 1/4 of
salary for the period he remained out of
service. However, there will be continuity
in service.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 527
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 1870 of 1981

Jagbhan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Director of Consolidation & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. S.K. Vidyarthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Addl. C.S.C., Mr.
Achal Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to claim of Sirdari rights by
petitioners over Gaon Sabha land recorded as
Shreni-IV, on the basis of adverse possession,
and the validity of concurrent orders passed by
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation),
and
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation under SS. 9-A (2), 11(1), & 48 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
SS. 9-A (2), 11(1), 48 - U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 26 - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 - Consolidation-Claim of Sirdari
rights - Adverse possession against Gaon
Sabha land - Not maintainable - Evidence
- Failure to prove title and possession -
Jurisdiction
-
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation - Limited powers prior to
10.11.1980 amendment - Writ Jurisdiction
- Article 226 - Concurrent findings of fact -
No interference warranted.
Held: There was no illegality in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in passing the impugned order
dated 13.10.1980 - Consolidation Officer "has
properly exercised the jurisdiction as provided
under Rule 26 of the U.P. C.H. Rules -
Petitioners failed to prove title or possession
over the plot in question - Plea of adverse
possession cannot be sustained against Gaon
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sabha property - Consequently, the concurrent
findings of all three consolidation courts
warranted no interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Petitioners not entitled
to be recorded as Sirdar - concurrent findings of
fact sustained - Petition dismissed - No order as
to costs. (Paras 10,11,12,13,14,15) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
None specifically cited in the judgment

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954; U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950.

List of Keywords
Adverse possession - Gaon Sabha land - Sirdar -
Shreni-IV - title objection - concurrent finding of
fact - limited jurisdiction - Rule 26 of U.P. C.H.
Rules.

Case Arising From
Orders of Consolidation Officer dated 29.6.1977,
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
dated
30.7.1977, and Deputy Director of Consolidation
dated 13.10.1980 relating to Khata No. 602, Plot
No. 211/13, Village Majhgawan, Tehsil Rath,
District Hamirpur.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Petitioners:
Mr. S.K. Vidyarthi.

Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Addl. C.S.C.; Mr. Achal
Singh.

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

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Vidyarthi, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashutosh
Kumar Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the staterespondents and Mr. Achal Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
dispute relates to khata no.602, plot no.211/13,
situated in village Majhgawan, Pargana and
Tehsil Rath, District Hamirpur. In the basic year
of
the
consolidation
operation,
the
aforementioned plot was recorded in the name
of the petitioners under Shreni-IV. Against the
basic year entry of the plot in question, an
objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,
1953
(hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act")
was filed by the petitioners with the prayer that
petitioners should be recorded as Sirdar in place
of Shreni-IV. The aforementioned objection
filed by the petitioners, was registered as Case
No.5767 before the Consolidation Officer. The
Gaon Sabha filed his reply, denying the case of
the petitioners. The petitioners adduced oral and
documentary evidence in support of their case.
One issue was framed before the Consolidation
Officer as to whether the petitioners/objectors is
entitled to be recorded as Sirdar on the basis of
their adverse possession. The Consolidation
Officer vide order dated 29.6.1977 rejected the
claim of the petitioners/objectors and directed
that plot in question should be recorded as
Jaman-V/Naveen Parti Gram Samaj. Against
the order of the Consolidation Officer dated
26.9.1977, appeal under Section 11(1) of the
U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the petitioners
which was heard and dismissed vide order dated
30.7.1977. Against the appellate order dated
30.7.1977, revision under Section 48 of the U.P.
C.H. Act was filed before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation which was registered as
Revision No.4616. The aforementioned revision
was heard and dismissed vide order dated
13.10.1980. Hence, this writ petition for the
following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari for
quashing the orders dated 29.6.1976 and
13.10.1980 passed by Consolidation Officer as
well as Assistant Director of Consolidation
respectively. (Annexure Nos. 1 & 2)."

3. This Court entertained the matter on
28.7.1981 and granted interim protection to the
effect that operation of the impugned order
dated 13.10.1980 shall remain stayed and the
possession of the petitioners shall not be
disturbed.
7 All. Jagbhan Singh & Ors. Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation & Ors.
529

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that petitioners are in possession of the disputed
plot since before the date of vesting, as such,
the petitioners have matured their right and title
in respect to the plot in question in view of the
provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A.
& L.R. Act"). He further submitted that title
objection filed by the petitioners to record their
names as Sirdar has been decided by the
Consolidation Officer in arbitrary manner. He
submitted that no documentary evidence was
filed
by
the
Gaon
Sabha
before
the
Consolidation Officer but the title objection of
the petitioners has been dismissed without
considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the petitioners. He submitted that
the appellate and revisional jurisdiction have
also been exercised in arbitrary manner. He
submitted that the impugned orders passed by
the consolidation authorities should be set aside
and the petitioners' objection under Section 9-A
(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act should be allowed,
directing the authorities to record the names of
the petitioners over the plot in question
forthwith.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl. C.S.C.
for the state-respondents and the counsel for the
respondent-gaon
sabha
submitted
that
concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by
all the three courts that no right will accrue to
the petitioners in respect to the gaon sabha land
on the basis of adverse possession. He
submitted that the petitioners have claimed the
right in respect to 13 acre land which belongs to
gaon
sabha.
They
submitted
that
the
Consolidation Officer has framed the issues and
considered the evidence adduced by the parties,
recording finding of fact that petitioners cannot
be recorded as Sirdar as neither the ownership
nor the possession has been proved according to
the provisions contained under the Act. They
further submitted that no interference is
required and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

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

7. There is no dispute about the fact that
the title objection filed by the petitioners under
Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was
dismissed by the Consolidation Officer which
has been maintained in appeal as well as
revision.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy
involved in the matter, perusal of the only issue
framed before the Consolidation Officer and the
finding recorded on that issue, will be relevant
which is as under:-

"न्र्ार्ालर् चकबन्दी अनिकारी राठ उत्तर

मुकदमा िम्बर 5767/6327 िारा 6क(2)

ग्राम- मफगवाां पर० व तर्सील राठ निल
र्मीरपुर।

िगमाि नसांर् बिाम ग्राम समाि

निर्यर्

वाद नबन्दु- (1) क्र्ा वादी नववाद ग्रस्त भूनम पर
कब्िे अिानिकार के आिार पर सीरदार र्ै? वादी की ओर से
बर्स प्रारम्भ करते र्ुए कर्ा गर्ा र्ै नक र्म नववानदत भूनम पर
िमािा िमींदारी से कानबि बर्ैनसर्त मुखालफा-िा, व
मालकािा बदस्तूर चले आ रर्े र्ैं र्मारे कब्िे की िािकारी
ग्राम समाि की र्मेशा से रर्ी र्ै परन्तु र्मारे नखलाफ कभी भी
बेदखली का दावा दार्र िर्ीं नकर्ा गर्ा। इससे स्पष्ट र्ोता र्ै
नक गाांव सभा को र्मारा कब्िा स्वीकार था। गवार् देव नसांर्
प्रिाि र्ै। उन्र्ोंिे अपिे ब्र्ािों में कर्ा र्ै नक मैं ग्राम समाि का
प्रिाि रर्ा र् ां मेरे समर् में र्ी िगभाि नसांर् का कब्िा नलखा
गर्ा था। इसकी िािकारी मुझे रर्ी। आरािी नििाई में
प्रनतवर्य फसल र्ोती र्ै। परती व बांिर कभी िर्ीं रर्ी नदिााँक
10-10-58 की नगर-दावर कािूिगो सार्ब का आदेश र्मारा
िाम वगय 4 में अांनकत र्ोिे का र्ुआ और उसके पर्ले से र्म
निरन्तर कानबि चले आ रर्े र्ैं। ित्थू गवार् का नववानदत भूनम
के पास र्ी खेत र्ै उसिे भी र्मारा कब्िा मािा र्ै। और चौर्दी
भी ठीक बतार्ी र्ै। 1363 फ० में र्मारे कब्िा निप्पर्ी के
स्तम्भ में लाल स्र्ार्ी अांनकत नकर्ा गर्ा र्ै तथा पूरे िम्बर पर
फसल अांनकत की गर्ी र्ै। 1364 व 1365 फ० में र्र्ी
इन्राि र्ै। 1366 फ० व 1367 फ० के खसरे समाप्त कर नदर्े
गर्े र्ै। अतः वर् उपलब्ि िर्ीं र्ै। इसी कारर् प० क० 10 की
िकल उपलब्ि िर्ीं नमल सकी र्ै। प० क० 10 का कोई
आनस्तत्व िर्ीं रर्ता िबनक उस समर् के प्रिाि िे र्मारा
कब्िा स्वीकार नकर्ा र्ै। 1368 फ० लगार्त आितक र्मारा
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
कब्िा निरन्तर चला आ रर्ा र्ै और फसल भी रर्ी र्ै। इस
प्रकार र्म नववानदत भूनम के कािूिि सीरदार र्ो गर्े र्ै।

ग्राम समाि की ओर से बर्स प्रारम्भ करते र्ुए
कर्ा गर्ा नक िकल खसरा 1363 फ० 1364 फ० तथा
1363 फ० की प्रमानर्त प्रनतर्ाां िमा िर्ीं की गर्ी र्ै। अतः
इि खसरों की साक्ष्र् में िर्ीं पढा िा सकता। र्र् खसरे फिी
लेखपाल से बिवाकर िमा कर नदर्े गर्े र्ै। िकल खसरा
1368 फ० में िग्गेनसांर् का िाम स्तम्भ 4 में अांनकत र्ै। रकबा
स्तम्भ 3 में 5-25, 132 व 6-68 अलग-अलग अांनकत नकर्ा
गर्ा र्ै तथा स्तम्भ 18 में बर्ेड़ व बांिर अांनकत नकर्ा गर्ा र्ै
िो र्र् स्पष्ट करता र्ै नक र्र् भूनम 1368 फ० में बांिर व
बेर्ड़ थी और एक ग्राम समाि के कब्िे में थी 1374 में
केवल 11-00 में फसल र्ै तथा 1 िवाब अांनकत र्ै इस प्रकार
वादी का वास्तनवक कब्िा 1366 फ० से प्रारम्भ र्ोता र्ै अतः
इसके बाद 12 वर्य पूरे िर्ीं र्ोता। 14 अक्िूबर 1671 से पूवय
र्नद 12 वर्य की अवनि पूवय िर्ीं र्ोती तो 30 वर्य का साक्ष्र्
प्रस्तुत करिा चानर्र्े। साथ र्ी 25-1-71 को आदेशािुसार
तर्सीलदार सार्ब िग्गेनसांर् पुत्र बृिराि नसांर् बेदखल नकर्े
गर्े।

उक्त तथ्र्ों के आिार पर मैं इस निष्कर्य पर
पर्ुांचता र् ाँ नक वादी अपिे नलनखत एवां मौनखक साक्ष्र् से दावा
नसद्ध करिे में पूर्य रूप से असफल र्ै अतः वादी का दावा
निरस्त नकर्ा िाता र्ै वाद नबन्दु वादी के नवरूद्ध निर्यर् नकर्ा
िाता र्ै। अतः
आदेश र्ुआ नक

गािा सांख्र्ा 211/13-00 से वादी िग्गे नसांर्
पुत्र बृिराि नसांर् निवासी ग्राम वगय 4 से िाम तथा आपनत्त
खाररि र्ोकर भूनम निमि 5 िवीि परती ग्राम समाि में
अांनकत र्ो। पत्रावली वाद अमल दरामद दानखल दफतर र्ो।

 र्स० डी०:-

 (प्रेम शांकर शमाय)

 च०अ० राठ उत्तर

 26-6-77"

9. The perusal of the issue framed and the
finding
recorded,
demonstrates
that
the
Consolidation Officer has properly exercised
the jurisdiction as provided under Rule 26 of
the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings
Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.
C.H. Rules").

10. The perusal of the finding of fact as
quoted above, fully demonstrates that plaintiff
has failed to prove his title as well as possession
in respect to the plot in question.

11. It is also settled that plea of adverse
possession is not available against the gaon
sabha property. The finding of fact recorded by
the Consolidation Officer has been maintained
by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and
the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

12. It is also material to mention that
relevant entry of 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli have
also not been annexed along with the writ
petition nor there is any pleading regarding the
entry, as such, no right and title can be given to
petitioners.

13. It is also relevant to mention that the
revisional order in the instant matter was passed
on 13.10.1980 and Section 48 of the U.P. C.H.
Act was amended by adding explanation 3
w.e.f. 10.11.1980, as such, the Deputy Director
of Consolidation in the instant matter on the
date
of
passing
of
the
judgment,
i.e.,
13.10.1980, was having limited jurisdiction.

14. In view of above, there is no illegality
in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation while
passing the impugned revisional order dated
13.10.1980.

15. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no scope of
interference by this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against the concurrent
judgment passed by all the three consolidation
courts under Sections 9-A(2)/11(1)/48 of the
U.P. C.H. Act.

16. The writ petition is dismissed.

17.
No
order
as
to
costs.
7 All. Jitendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 531
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 2525 of 2024
&
Writ B No. 318 of 2025

Jitendra. ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kamlesh Shrama, Pradeep Kumar Rai,
Prajyot Rai, Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dhirendra Singh, J.P. Singh

Issue for Consideration
I. Whether the consolidation authorities have
not decided the dispute regarding succession in
proper manner
II. Whether consolidation authorities have
illegally held that petitioner as well as private
respondents both will succeed as provided
under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226 - The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 12 - The
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 171 &
175 - finding of fact recorded by appellate
Court fully demonstrate that in the basic
year khatauni, Shanti Devi was recorded
along with co-tenure holders of the khata
in dispute and appellate Court has rightly
appreciated the provisions of Sections 171
to 175 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in holding
that provision of Section 175 of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act will be applicable in the
instant matter - Petition dismissed.
Held- The Settlement Officer of Consolidation
has rightly held that in view of the provisions
contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and
L.R. Act, petitioner as well as private respondent
will be entitled to be recorded in the place of
deceased Shanti Devi on the basis of principle of
survivorship as provided under Section 175 -
Consolidation Officer has directed to record the
name of private respondent only in place of
Shanti Devi but in appeal filed by petitioner
which was allowed and petitioner as well as
private respondents both were ordered to be
recorded
on
the
basis
of
principle
of
survivorship, as such, there was no occasion to
challenge the appellate order in revision as
petitioner and private respondents both were
ordered to be recorded in place of deceased
Shanti Devi. (Para 13, 16 & 17) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
;AIR (2000) SC 745 Moolchand Vs. Kedar
(deceased) by LRS and Others

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950- The Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

List of Keywords
Principle of survivorship; Section 175 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act; Basic year khatauni

Case Arising From
I. Order dated 22.5.2024 passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation under Section 48 (1) of
the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 in case No. 0464 of
2020,
computerized
case
No.
20205415500000464, revision No. 180 of 2024
and revision No. 209 of 2024, computerized
case No. 2020531551000016, the order dated
7.12.2019 passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and the orders dated 26.12.2018
passed by the Consolidation Officer (Final
Record), Mau in case No. 426 rejecting the
restoration application filed by the petitioner
against the ex-parte orders dated 18.5.2016 and
the order dated 18.5.2016 passed under Section
12 of the U.P.C.H. Act