# Jagdish Singh & Anr v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 560
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-13
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 3985 of 2018
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-singh-anr-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-allahabad-ors-49665
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 49 - Bar to
civil Courts jurisdiction - findings recorded
by
the
Consolidation
Courts
in
consolidation
proceedings
is
final
&
binding on all the parties and, such
findings cannot be re-adjudicated or
challenged in any Civil or Revenue Court -
Section 49 of the Consolidation Act in a
way laid down a rule of res-judicata in so
far as the question relating to declaration
and adjudication of the rights of a tenure
holder in respect of his holding (Para 8, 9)

B.Civil Law - U.P Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953- Section 49 - Petitioners claimed
themselves to be in possession since
before the Consolidation operation - land
was not vacant at the time of grant of
patta - Illegal entry was made in respect
to the petitioner's plot that was corrected
by
the
order
of
Deputy
Director
Consolidation - there was no occasion to
grant
the
lease
to
the
contesting
respondent - Held - All the three Courts
arbitrarily
rejected
the
petitioners'
application for cancellation of patta -
Courts below failed to consider that order
passed by the Consolidation Court cannot
be ignored by the Revenue Court, but the
Courts below arbitrarily rejected the
petitioners' application for cancellation of
lease executed in favour of contesting
respondents (Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ग्रनष्प्रभावी है तथा यह उद्घ ग्रषत ग्रकया जावे ग्रक
सुलहनामा ग्रडिी ग्रदनाोंक 04.02.2015 पाररत
न्यायालय ग्रसग्रवल जज (सी.डी.) बग्रलया मु.नों.
333/2010 प्रेमिन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायन प्रसाद शून्य व
ग्रनष्प्रभावी है तथा उक्त ग्रडिी का असर वादी के
राईट्, ट्ाइग्रट्ल व इन्रेस्ट पर नहीों पड़ता है।

ब- यह ग्रक वजररये हुक्म इम्तनाई दवामी
प्रग्रतवादी क मना ग्रकया जावे ग्रक उपर क्त द न
वसीयतनामा ग्रदनाोंक 07.01.2002 व 17.01.2002
ग्रनष्पादक ग्रवजय प्रसाद उफि छ ट्कन वहक
प्रग्रतवादी के आिार पर जायदाद ग्रजसका ग्रववरण
वाद पत्र के अन्त में ग्रदया गया है के हक व ग्रहस्सा
वकदर 1⁄2 भाग के अनुसार वादी के कब्जा दिल में
न त ग्रकसी भी प्रकार से क ई मुजाग्रहमत करे न
कराये न उसके ग्रकसी भाग का ग्रविी करे न ग्रकसी
प्रकार का अोंतरण करे न ही क ई ऐसा कायि करे
ग्रजससे उक्त सम्पूणि जायदाद पर हम वादी के तन्हा
कब्जा दिल में क ई मुजाग्रहमत व व्यविान न डाले।

स- यह ग्रक ििाि मुकदमा हम वादी क
प्रग्रतवादी से ग्रदलवा ग्रदया जावे।

द- यह कि अलावे ख्वाह बजाय दादरसी
बाला िे कजस किसी दीगर दादरसी िे मुश्तहि
हम वादी वनजदीि राय अदालत िरार पाये
जावे उसिी भी किक्री वहि वादी कवरूद्ध
प्रकतवादी साकदर फरमायी जावे।"

15. In view of the aforementioned fact
that decree of civil court dated 20.01.2015 has
not been recalled/set aside/modified by any
Court as such, the name of the petitioner could
not be expunged from the revenue records
unless the decree of the civil court dated
20.01.2015 is recalled/set aside/modified.

16. The courts below in exercise of
power under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act arbitrarily ordered vide order
dated 17.05.2018 for recording the name of
respondent No. 4 along with petitioner and
expunged the name of the petitioner, who was
recorded
exclusively
on
the
basis
of
compromise decree of Civil Court dated
20.01.2015 in place of their father Vijay
Prasad. The order of Tehsildar dated
17.05.2018 has been maintained in appeal and
revision arbitrarily, which is against the order
passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333
of 2010.

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances the case, the impugned order
dated 04.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 1
Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, order
dated 31.12.2018 passed by respondent No. 2
Up-Ziladhikari, Bairiya, District-Ballia and
order dated 17.05.2018 passed by respondent
No. 3- Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bairiya, District-
Ballia are liable to be set aside and are hereby
set aside.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.

19. Respondents are directed to record
the name of the petitioner in the revenue
records on the basis of compromise decree
dated 20.01.2015 passed by civil court in Civil
Suit No. 333 of 2010, which shall be subject to
the final adjudication of subsequent Civil Suit
No.1037 of 2020 filed by respondent No.4 in
the civil court at Ballia.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 560
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-A No. 3985 of 2018

Jagdish Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents
1 All. Jagdish Singh & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
561
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Om Prakash Pandey, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Dharm Vir Jaiswal, Sri Pradeep
Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, Sri Ajay Pal, Sri
Ashutosh Kumar Gautam, Sri Mahesh Prasad, Sri
Satya Priya Mishra, Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan

A. Civil Law - U.P Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 49 - Bar to
civil Courts jurisdiction - findings recorded
by
the
Consolidation
Courts
in
consolidation
proceedings
is
final
&
binding on all the parties and, such
findings cannot be re-adjudicated or
challenged in any Civil or Revenue Court -
Section 49 of the Consolidation Act in a
way laid down a rule of res-judicata in so
far as the question relating to declaration
and adjudication of the rights of a tenure
holder in respect of his holding (Para 8, 9)

B.Civil Law - U.P Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953- Section 49 - Petitioners claimed
themselves to be in possession since
before the Consolidation operation - land
was not vacant at the time of grant of
patta - Illegal entry was made in respect
to the petitioner's plot that was corrected
by
the
order
of
Deputy
Director
Consolidation - there was no occasion to
grant
the
lease
to
the
contesting
respondent - Held - All the three Courts
arbitrarily
rejected
the
petitioners'
application for cancellation of patta -
Courts below failed to consider that order
passed by the Consolidation Court cannot
be ignored by the Revenue Court, but the
Courts below arbitrarily rejected the
petitioners' application for cancellation of
lease executed in favour of contesting
respondents (Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Balbir Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2011
I.B.R.D. 201

2. Benimadho Vs Deputy Director Consolidation
Deoria & ors. (2003) 5 AWC 3808
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. O.P. Pandey, learned
counsel assisted by Shri A.K. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
D.V. Jaiswal, Advocate assisted by Mr.
Pradeep Kumar, counsel for respondent
No.4.

2. Brief facts of the case are that old
Plot No.138m area 0.9 acre and 520m area
0.14 acre, allotted plot no.262 (New Plot
No.448m area 0.17 hectare situated in
Village Illahabad, Tappa Banki, Pargana,
Haveli Tehsil - Sadar, Gorakhpur, now
Maharajganj. Petitioners are in possession
over Plot Nos.138 and 520 (new Plot
No.448) even prior to the consolidation
operation and also during consolidation
operation, petitioners are in possession of
the aforementioned plot and are cultivating
the same. During consolidation operation
allotted plot No.262 (new Plot No.448) was
carved out. C.H. Form No.41 has been
annexed along with the writ petition as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
Aforesaid old Plot No.138m area 14
decimal and 520m area 14 decimal was
recorded
as
matrook.
Consolidation
Officer, Gorakhpur, vide order dated
4.7.1984 passed the order in favour of
petitioner and expunged the entry of
matrook in respect to disputed plot.
Consolidation Officer has also ordered that
the plot be recorded in the name of the Jai
Nath Singh s/o Ram Raj (father of the
petitioner
No.1
and
grandfather
of
petitioner No.2). Order dated 4.7.1984
passed in Case No.14570/452 has been
implemented and reference Case No.649
dated 20.4.1985 was initiated and on the
basis
thereof,
revision
No.649
was
registered before the Deputy Director
Consolidation.
Deputy
Director
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation approved the report referred
to him by Consolidation Officer. In
pursuance of the order of Deputy Director
Consolidation approving the report, the Old
Plot No.262m (New Plot No.448) was
entered in Chak No.80 of the petitioners.
Area was accordingly deducted from
naveen parti of Chak No.294. In pursuance
of
the
order
dated
4.7.1984
and
implementation order dated 25.4.1985
passed in Case No.2091 as well as
Reference Order dated 29.5.1985 passed in
Revision No.649, the final records have
been prepared in the name of the
petitioners.

3. Copy of the Khatauni has been
annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition in order to demonstrate that plot
No.448m area 0.17 has been recorded in
the name of Jai Nath (father of petitioner
No.1). Plot No.448 was not recorded as
Gram Sabha land nor it was vacant land
even then the patta was alleged to be
executed in favour of respondents No.4 to
10 under Section 19(5) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R.
Act.
According
to
petitioners,
contesting respondents Nos.4 to 10 are not
in possession of disputed Plot No.448 nor
patta was executed in the name of
contesting respondent. Petitioners filed an
application for cancellation of patta on
13.2.1985 against the alleged allotment
order made in favour of respondent Nos.4
to 10 taking specific ground that disputed
plot was not vacant nor disputed plot was
recorded as Gaon Sabha plot at the relevant
point of time as such the patta is liable to
be cancelled. Respondent No.3, vide order
dated 31.12.1987, rejected the application
filed by petitioners for cancellation of patta.
Petitioners filed revision No.710 of 1995
on 16.1.1988 before the Commissioner
against the order dated 31.12.1987, the
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur
through
its
order
dated
27.8.1988 dismissed the revision filed by
petitioners. Petitioners challenged the order
of the Additional Commissioner through
revision before the Board of Revenue in
which initially interim order was granted
but subsequently, Board of Revenue after
hearing the parties dismissed the revision
vide order dated 25.5.2002. Petitioners
filed review petition before the Board of
Revenue against the order dated 25.5.2002
which was rejected vide order dated
28.2.2018 on the ground of limitation.
Hence, this writ petition.

4. This Court while entertaining the
writ petition passed the following interim
order dated 23.5.2018 which was extended
from time to time :-

"It is stated that the Board of
Revenue has granted status quo order
while admitting the revision on 8.1.1991
and it was continuing till the disposal of
the revision.

Learned Standing Counsel appears
for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri
Tariq Maqbool Khan, learned Advocate
has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent no. 11.

Issue notice to respondent no. 4 to
10 returnable on 5.9.2018.

Steps be taken within ten days.

Respondents
may
file
counter
affidavit counter affidavit on or before
the next date of listing.

List this case on 5.9.2018. Till then
parties are directed to maintain status
quo and they shall not create third party
interest without leave of the Court."

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is owner in possession of
the disputed plot as such, patta cannot be
executed in favour of respondents No.4 to 10
1 All. Jagdish Singh & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
563
as plot in dispute is neither Gram Sabha plot
nor it was vacant at the relevant point of time
as provided under Section Section 19(5) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further
submitted that in pursuance of the order dated
4.7.1984 along with implementation order
dated 25.4.1985 passed in Case No.2091 as
well as reference order dated 29.5.1985
passed in Revision No.649, the final records
have been prepared in the name of the
petitioner as such, there was no occasion for
allotment of plot in dispute in favour of
respondents No.4 to 10. He further submitted
that application filed by petitioner under
Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.,
the grant of patta prior to the publication of
notification under Section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, is wholly
illegal as disputed plot was not vacant plot,
petitioner is in possession of the same, Gaon
Sabha was not owner of the disputed plot
No.448 nor in possession of the same coupled
with the fact that there was no publication of
notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.
Act. He further submitted that respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3 have arbitrarily rejected the
revision
appeal
and
application
for
cancellation of patta filed by petitioners
without considering the point raised by
petitioners in accordance with law. He further
submitted that Board of Revenue has further
committed illegality in rejecting the review
application filed by the petitioners. He placed
reliance upon the following judgments of this
Court ;

(i) 2011 I.B.R.D. 201 Balbir Singh
and others vs. State of U.P. and others.

(ii) (2003) 5 AWC 3808 Benimadho
vs.
Deputy
Director
Consolidation
Deoria and others.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the
contesting
respondents
Nos.4
to
10
submitted that petitioner has not impleaded
all the necessary parties in the proceedings
as such writ petition filed by petitioners
cannot be entertained. He further submitted
that plot in dispute was recorded in favour
of the Gram Sabha as such the allotment
was made in accordance with law to the
respondent
No.4
who
belonged
to
Scheduled Caste community. He further
submitted that the name of respondent No.4
has been accordingly recorded in the
revenue record. He further submitted that
Appellate Court and Revisional Court have
rightly dismissed the appeal and revision
filed by petitioners. He further submitted
that plot No.448, area 0.41 hectare was
recorded as naveen parti in the C.H. Form
45 accordingly, the patta was executed in
favour of respondents in accordance with
law. He further submitted that order passed
by the Deputy Director Consolidation dated
30.3.1992 appears to be fictitious, as such,
no reliance can be placed upon the same.
He next submitted that petitioners have
filed Civil Suit No.915 of 2012 which was
dismissed for non-prosecution, vide order
dated 21.4.2014, as such, no interference is
required against the impugned order. He
finally submitted that allotment was made
to the contesting respondent much before
the order passed by Deputy Director
Consolidation, the land was admittedly
recorded as matrook which means nobody's
land vested in the Gaon Sabha. As such, no
case for cancellation of patta granted in
favour of the contesting respondent is made
out and writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records. There is no dispute
about
the
fact
that
application
for
cancellation of lease filed by petitioners
under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act has been dismissed by the
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent No.3 and the order has been
maintained in appeal and revision by
respondent
No.2
and
1
respectively.
According
to
petitioners
in
the
consolidation proceedings, Deputy Director
Consolidation, vide order dated 25.04.1985
approved the reference submitted in the
proceeding by which the plot in dispute
was ordered to be recorded in the name of
the petitioners' father and the entry of
matrook has been expunged. Although
contesting respondents are denying the fact
and submitting that orders passed by
Consolidation Court are not genuine order.

8. Since Consolidation Court has
passed the order dated 4.7.1984, 25.4.1985
and 29.5.1985 by which the entry of
matrook has been expunged and the name
of petitioners' father was ordered to be
recorded and the order has attained finality,
as such, mere denial by the contesting
respondents about the genuineness of the
order of Consolidation Court is not
sufficient. The case cited by counsel for the
petitioners with respect to the order passed
by the Consolidation Court and its binding
affect in the other proceedings are relevant
for consideration. Paragraph No.11 of the
judgment
rendered
in
Balbir
Singh
(Supra) is as follows :-

"11. Admittedly, when the ceiling
proceedings were initiated against the
tenure holder Jaswant, the consolidation
proceedings stood completed in the
village and Jaswant became the absolute
owner of the property in his individual
capacity. In Jaswant Kumar v. State of
U.P. and others, it was held that the
findings recorded by the Consolidation
Courts in consolidation proceedings is
final and binding on all the parties and,
such findings cannot be re-adjudicated
or challenged in any Civil or Revenue
Court. The Court further held that
section 49 of the Consolidation Act in a
way laid down a rule of res-judicata in so
far as the question relating to declaration
and adjudication of the rights of a tenure
holder in respect of his holdings. The
Court further held that the ceiling
authorities had a right to take the land
from the tenure holder as it was declared
surplus by the Consolidation Court.

9. Para No.14 of the judgment
rendered in Benimadho (Supra) is as
follows :-

"14.
Another
ground
for
not
interfering is that the parties have been
given full opportunity to contest their
matter on merits in appeal in the
consolidation proceedings where rights
are settled finally and after such orders
neither civil court nor revenue court
could interfere in such adjudication. The
consolidation disputes are disputes which
arise on notification under Section 4 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Parties willing or not willing are
compelled
to
go
to
this
forum
compulsorily in order to get their rights
finally settled. In such a situation, the
technical view in the matter of limitation
could not be taken and all such technical
matters are required to be construed
liberally. I do not consider it a fit case for
interference on this additional ground
also."

10. All the three Courts have
arbitrarily
rejected
the
petitioners'
application for cancellation of patta and
approved the patta granted in favour of the
contesting respondents on the ground that
at the time of grant of patta, plot-in-dispute
was recorded as naveen parti and vacant
land. The Courts below have failed to
1 All. Smt. Manorama Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
565
consider the effect of the order passed by
the Consolidation Court. Courts below
have failed to consider that order passed by
the Consolidation Court cannot be ignored
at all but the Courts below have arbitrarily
rejected the petitioners' application for
cancellation of lease executed in favour of
contesting respondents.

11. It is also relevant to mention that
petitioners are claiming themselves to be in
possession since before the Consolidation
operation, as such, the land was not vacant
at all at the time of grant of patta and the
entry which was illegally made in respect
to the petitioner's plot that was corrected by
the order of Deputy Director Consolidation,
as such, there was no occasion to grant the
lease to the contesting respondent.

12. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as ratio of law laid
down in Balbir Singh (Supra) as well as
Benimadho (Supra), the impugned orders
dated 28.2.2018 and 25.5.2002 passed by
Board of Revenue, 27.8.1988 passed by
Additional Commissioner and 31.12.1987
passed by Additional District Magistrate,
Finance and Revenue, Gorakhpur are liable
to be set aside and the same are hereby set
aside.

13. The writ petition stands allowed
and matter is remitted back before the
respondent No.3 ? to decide the petitioners'
application under Section 198(4) which
was registered as Case No.382 of 1985
afresh on merit in the light of the
observations made in the body of the
judgment expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 6490 of 2002

Smt. Manorama ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - Under-Valuation of the
instrument - deficiency of stamp duty -
Collector is not permitted to launch upon a
speculative inquiry about the prospective
use to which a land may be put to use at
an uncertain future date - market value of
the property has to be determined with
reference to the use to which the land is
capable
reasonably
of
being
put
to
immediately or in the proximate future -
In the instant case disputed plot recorded
as agricultural plot in the revenue record
on the date of execution of sale deed in
favour of petitioner i.e. on i.e. 23.03.1995
- Naib Tehsildar submitted report dated
06.11.1995 that plot in dispute is an
agricultural
plot
and
no
building
is
situated over the same - However, Stamp
duty imposed by Additional Collector on
the ground of future potential of the land -
Held - imposition of residential/ abadi rate
for determining the valuation of land on
the ground of future potential of the land
in dispute is illegal - there was no
evidence on record to hold that land in
dispute is not an agricultural land -
impugned orders cannot be sustained in
the eye of law (Para 9, 10)

Allowed. (E-5)