# Jitendra v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 531
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-25
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 2525 of 2024
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53589
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

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
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
II. Proceeding of case No. 7 of 2024,
computerized
case
No.
20195151020179
(Sharda Devi Vs. State and others) under Rule
109-A (1) of U.P.C.H. Act pending before
Consolidation Officer Sadar-II Mau District Mau

Appearances for Parties

Counsel
for
Petitioner:-
Kamlesh
Shrama,
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai, Rituvendra
Singh Nagvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dhirendra
Singh, J.P. Singh

Judgment/Order of the High Court

## Text

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
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
II. Proceeding of case No. 7 of 2024,
computerized
case
No.
20195151020179
(Sharda Devi Vs. State and others) under Rule
109-A (1) of U.P.C.H. Act pending before
Consolidation Officer Sadar-II Mau District Mau

Appearances for Parties

Counsel
for
Petitioner:-
Kamlesh
Shrama,
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai, Rituvendra
Singh Nagvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dhirendra
Singh, J.P. Singh

Judgment/Order of the High Court

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

1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Dhirendra Singh/ Mr. J.P. Singh,
learned counsels for the private respondents
and Mr. P.S. Chauhan, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents in both
the petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
dispute relates to chak No. 151 situated in
Village Luduhi, Pargana-Ghosi, District
Mau. The family pedigree of the parties is
mentioned in paragraph No.6 of Writ B No.
2525 of 2024. The family pedigree
demonstrate that one Charittar had four
sons (Bindeshwar, Nageshwar, Muneshwar
and Dhaneshwar) and one daughter (Shyam
Dulari). The pedigree further demonstrate
that Bindeshwar and Dhaneshwar died
issueless. Nageshwar had died leaving
behind his widow Pyari Devi and from the
wedlock of Nageshwar and Pyari Devi, two
daughters (Sharda and Sheela) were born.
Sharda is private respondents in both the
writ petitions. Muneshwar had died leaving
behind his son Jitendra who is petitioner in
both the writ petitions and Shyam Dulari
died leaving behind her daughter (Shanti).
During consolidation proceeding in the
Village in question, C.H. Form 23 was
distributed in the name of Shanti Devi
(daughter of Shyam Dulari) in respect to
chak No. 151. Subsequently the C.H. Form
45 was prepared and new plot No. 302 area
1 acre 86 kari was carved out in the name
of Shanti Devi. Shanti Devi had expired
accordingly application under Section 12 of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act was
filed by petitioner claiming right on the
basis of the provisions contained under
Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act. The aforementioned proceeding under
Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act was
initiated before issuance of notification
under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The
Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an
order dated 23.2.1983 to record the name of
petitioner/ Jitendra in the place of Shanti
Devi. Against the order dated 23.2.1983
passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer,
one Nageshwar, son of Charittar filed a
revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.
Act along with the prayer for condonation
of delay. The aforementioned revision was
heard and allowed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation vide order dated 30.9.2014
after condoning the delay in filing the
revision and remitted the matter back
before the Consolidation Officer setting
aside the order dated 23.2.1983 passed by
Assistant Consolidation Officer for fresh
decision of the proceeding/ application
under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In
pursuance of the remand order passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation, the
matter
was
proceeded
before
the
Consolidation Officer and an issue was
7 All. Jitendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
533
framed to the effect as who is the legal heir
of Smt. Shanti Devi (daughter of Shyam
Dulari). Consolidation Officer passed an
ex-parte order on 18.5.2016 accordingly
petitioner filed a restoration application
which was dismissed by Consolidation
Officer vide order dated 26.12.2018.
Against the orders dated 18.5.2016 and
26.12.2018
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer, appeal was preferred by petitioner/
Jitendra before the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal
was heard and allowed by Settlement
Officer of Consolidation vide order dated
7.12.2019 setting aside the orders dated
18.5.2016/ 26.12.2018 and directed to
record the name of petitioner/ Jitendra and
Sharda Devi (daughter of Nageshwar) over
chak No. 151 after expunging the name of
Shanti Devi (daughter of Shyam Dulari).
Against
the
appellate
order
dated
7.12.2019, two revisions were filed by
petitioner/ Jitendra under Section 48 of the
U.P.C.H. Act which were numbered as
revision No. 180 of 2024 and 209 of 2024.
One revision was filed against the order of
Consolidation Officer and another revision
was filed against the order of Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation.
Both
the
aforementioned
revisions
were
consolidated and heard together. Deputy
Director of Consolidation vide order dated
22.5.2024 dismissed both the revision and
maintained the order of Settlement Officer
of Consolidation dated 7.12.2019. Hence
Writ B No. 2525 of 2024 has been filed by
petitioner/ Jitendra for the following
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to call
for record of the case and quash the 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.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
restraining the respondent authorities not
to dispossession the petitioner from plot
No. 302."

3 This Court on 6.8.2024 directed the
learned counsel for the private respondents
to
file
counter
affidavit
accordingly
pleadings are exchanged between the
parties.

4. Writ B No. 318 of 2025 has been
filed by petitioner/ Jitendra for the
following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
entire proceeding of case No. 7 of 2024,
computerized case No. 20195151020179
(Sharda Devi Vs. State and others) under
Rule 109-A (1) of U.P.C.H. Act pending
before Consolidation Officer Sadar-II
Mau District Mau/ respondent no.3."

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that consolidation
authorities have not decided the dispute
regarding succession of Shanti Devi in
proper manner, as such, the impugned
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders passed by consolidation authorities
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He
further submitted that in view of the
provisions contained under Section 171 of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, petitioner/
Jitendra (son of Charittar) will succeed
Shanti
Devi
but
the
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.
He submitted that impugned orders passed
by consolidation authorities should be set
aside and direction be issued for recording
the name of petitioner/ Jitendra only as
successor
of
deceased
Shanti
Devi
(daughter of Shyam Dulari). He further
submitted
that
in
view
of
the
aforementioned
fact,
the
proceeding
initiated by private respondents under Rule
109 (A) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Rule, 1954 hereinafter referred to
as U.P.C.H. Rules for giving effect, the
orders have been passed by consolidation
authorities under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act should be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel
for private respondents submitted that
consolidation
authorities
have
rightly
considered the provisions contained under
Sections 171 to 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and
L.R. Act and directed that according to the
provisions contained under Section 175 of
the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, petitioner/
Jitendra as well as private respondent-
Sharda Devi (daughter of Nageshwar) will
be entitled to be recorded in place of
deceased Shanti Devi in respect to chak
No. 151. He further submitted that chak no.
151 was recorded in the name of four sons
of Charittar as well as Shyam Dulari
(daughter of Charittar) and after death of
Shanti Devi, petitioner/ Jitendra had
fradulently got his name recorded under
Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act but after
remand
order
passed
in
revision,
consolidation
authorities
have
rightly
ordered to record the name of petitioner/
Jitendra as well as private respondent
(Sharda Devi) in view of the provisions
contained under Section 175 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which requires no
interference in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. He further submitted that one
revision filed by one Savita Devi was
dismissed as withdrawn. He submitted that
no interference is required in the matter and
writ petition filed by petitioner should be
dismissed. He submitted that there is no
illegality in the initiation of proceeding by
private respondent under Rule 109-A of
U.P.C.H. Rules on the basis of final orders
passed in the proceeding under Section 12
of the U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted
that no interim order was operating in the
Writ B No. 2525 of 2024 filed by
petitioner. He submitted that Writ B No.
318 of 2025 filed by petitioner is also liable
to be dismissed. He further placed reliance
upon the following judgement of this Court
in support of his argument:- (I) 1998 R.D.
328 Mool Chand Vs. Kedar and Others

(ii) 1973 R.D. 308 Dharam Das
Vs. Bishun Narain

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that Consolidation Officer vide order dated
18.5.2016 in the proceeding under Section
12 of the U.P.C.H. Act directed to record
the name of private respondent (Sharda
Devi, daughter of Nageshwar) in place of
deceased Shanti Devi (daughter of Shyam
Dulari) in respect to chak No. 151 but in
7 All. Jitendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H.
Act filed by petitioner, the order of
Consolidation Officer were set aside and
the name of petitioner/ Jitendra as well as
private respondent (Sharda Devi) were
ordered to be recorded in place of Shanti
Devi. There is also no dispute about the
fact that revisions filed by petitioner/
Jitendra against the order of Settlement
Officer of Consolidation were dismissed.

9.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of the family pedigree of the parties
will be relevant. The family pedigree as
mentioned in the grounds of revision filed
by petitioner/ Jitendra is as under:-

Charittar

Bindeshwari Nageshwar
(died)

Muneshwar
Shyam Dulari

(issueless)
(death year 1998)

 Dhaneshar

Jitendra

Shanti

Pyari Devi (wife)

(daughter)

(death year 2001)

Sukhia (wife)

Sharda Devi (married daughter)

 Savita (daughter)

10. In the counter affidavit, private
respondent has mentioned the family
pedigree which is slightly different, as
such, the perusal of the same will be
relevant which is as under:-

Charitar

Bindeshwari
Nageshwar

Muneshwar Dhaneshar

(died issueless)

Pyari Devi (wife) Jitendra

(died issueless)

Shyam Dulari (daughter)

Sharda Devi (daughter)

Shanti Devi (daughter)

(died)

11. The dispute in the present matter is
regarding the succession of Shanti Devi
(daughter of Shyam Dulari). It is also
material to mention that Shanti Devi
remained recorded till her death along with
the sons of Charittar and there was
objection by anybody for expunging the
name of Shanti Devi. The dispute has
arisen after the death of Shanti Devi.

12. The perusal of finding of fact
recorded
by
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation allowing the appeal of
petitioner for recording the name of
petitioner/ Jitendra along with respondent
no.5/ Sharda Devi in the place of deceased
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shanti Devi (daughter of Shyam Dulari)
will be relevant which is as under:-

"न्यायालय बन्दोबस्त अभधकारी
चकबन्दी, मऊ

अपील संख्या 1323/1508

 धारा
11 (1) जो०च०अभध० शारदा

भजतेन्द्र
 बनाम
 शारदा

ग्राम-लुदुही, परगना व तहसील-घोसी,
जनपद-मऊ

भनणवय

साक्ष्यों से स्पि है भक मृतका शाभन्त देवी द्वारा स्वत्व
िूभम अपनी मााँ से बतौर उत्तराभधकारी राप्त की गयी थी भजनके स्वयं
के पररवार में भकसी व्यभि द्वारा उत्तराभधकार का दावा रस्तुत नहीं
भकया गया है। धारा 171 के अनुसार मृतक शाभन्त देवी का कोई
वाररस नहीं है भजसके ओर से उत्तराभधकारी होने का दावा रस्तुत
भकया गया हो। साक्ष्यों से यह िी भसद्ध है भक धारा 172 के अधीन
मृतका शाभन्त देवी का कोई जीभवत भवभधक वाररस नहीं है। उ०र०
जमीदारी भवनाश अभधभनयम एवं िूभम व्यवस्था अभधभनयम की धारा
175 में यह राभवधान है भक जब भकसी सहखातेदार की मृत्यु हो
जाय तो संयुि सम्प्पदा में उसके अंश को उसके उत्तराभधकारी धारा
171 से 174 के राभवधानों के अनुसार राप्त होगें। भकन्तु जब ऐसा
सहखातेदार भबना भकसी उत्तराभधकारी के और भबना वैध वसीयत
भकये मर जाय तो संयुि सम्प्पदा (जोत) में उसका अंश बचे हुए
सहखातेदारों को उत्तरजीभवता के भसद्धान्त के अनुसार इस धारा के
अन्तगवत राप्त होगा। साक्ष्यों से यह भसद्ध है भक मृतका शाभन्त देवी
का भवभधक उत्तराभधकारी धारा 171 से 174 के राभवधानों के
अनुसार नहीं है। ऐसी दशा में उत्तराभधकार/स्वत्व का संक्रमण धारा
175 के अनुसार होगा। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा िी उि भनष्ट्किव िी
भदया गया है जो उभचत है, भकन्तु भवचारणीय रश्न यह है भक मृतका
शाभन्त देवी के साथ भकन खातेदारों का नाम बतौर सहखातेदार दजव
रहा है। इस सम्प्बन्ध में अपील स्तर पर रस्तुत साक्ष्य नकल आधार
विव खतौनी खाता सं० 33 से स्पि है भक भववाभदत िूभम पर
भबन्देश्वरी, नागेश्वर, मुनेसर, धनेसर पुत्रगण चररत्तर व शाभन्त देवी पुत्री
श्यामदुलारी का नाम अंभकत है भजससे स्पि है भक भववाभदत िूभम में
मृतका शाभन्त के साथ भबन्देश्वरी आभद पुत्रगण चररत्तर उि का नाम
दजव रहा है। साक्ष्यों से यह िी स्पि है भक भबन्देश्वरी व धनेसर िी
लावपद मृत हो चुके हैं। नागेश्वर की एक मात्र पुत्री शारदा तथा मुनेसर
का एक मात्र पुत्र भजतेन्द्र जीभवत हैं जो धारा 175 व उ०र०
जमींदारी भवनाश अभधभनयम एवं िूभम व्यवस्था अभधभनयम के
राभवधानों के अधीन मृतका शाभन्त देवी के उत्तराभधकारी हैं। अवर
न्यायालय द्वारा मृतका शाभन्त देवी का एक मात्र वाररस शारदा देवी
पुत्री नागेश्वर को धारा 175 के तहत माना है, जबभक साक्ष्यों से
भसद्ध है भक शारदा एवं भजतेन्द्र दोनों धारा 175 के अन्तगवत वाररस
हैं।

आदेश

उपरोि भववेचना के आधार पर अपील स्वीकार की
जाती है। अवर न्यायालय का आदेश भदनांक 18.05.2016 व
26.12.2018 भनरस्त भकया जाता है। चक सं० 151 पर अंभकत
मृतक शाभन्त देवी पुत्री श्यामदुलारी का नाम खाररज करके बतौर
वाररस भजतेन्द्र पुत्र मुनेसर व शारदा पुत्री नागेश्वर अंभकत हो। पत्रावली
वाद अमलदरामद अभिलेखागार में संभचत हो।

(सुरेश जायसवाल)

बन्दोबस्त अभधकारी चकबन्दी

मऊ।"

13. The finding of fact recorded by
appellate Court as quoted above fully
demonstrate that in the basic year khatauni,
Shanti Devi was recorded along with cotenure 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.

14.
In
order
to
adjudicate
the
controversy involved in the present matter,
the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case reported in AIR (2000)
SC 745 Moolchand Vs. Kedar (deceased)
7 All. Jitendra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
by LRS and Others will be relevant.
Paragraph Nos. 12 to 16 of the judgement
rendered in Moolchand (Supra) will be
relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"12. However, in the present
case, Section 172 (2) squarely applies as
female Bhumidhar died after coming into
force of the aforesaid U.P.Z.A. Act.

13. Thus in this background the
question is, whether Section 172(2)(a)(ii)
or
172(2)(a)(i)
is
applicable.
The
distinction between the two clauses are
that under (i) inheritance would be
governed by Section 171, if under the
personal law she was entitled to a life
estate. If on the other hand, under the
personal law if she was entitled to hold
such estate absolutely, then inheritance
would be governed by the Table under
Section 174. The Legislature clearly spells
out its intent. So to find the channel of
inheritance, one has to go to the personal
law applicable to her and then to steer to
the provisions to find whether she would
have held the property as limited or
absolute owner before applying sub-clause
(i) or (ii). So, first it has to be examined,
what would have been her right to such
estate under her personal law. This right
has not to be seen either under Tenancy
Law, U.P.Z.A. Act or any other statutory
or other law but has to be seen only under
her Personal Law. The legal position, so
far as personal law viz. Hindu Law, of a
female inheriting property from a male is
what we have quoted above from Mullas
Hindu Law. As already stated any female
including the daughter, as in the present
case, when she inherits the property from
male gets only life estate in as much as the
case is not governed by the Bombay
School. In view of this legal position,
Section 172(2)(a)(i) would apply, and not
sub-clause (ii). May be, after coming into
force of the Hindu Succession Act of
1956, within the ambit of Section 14,
limited
estate
of
Hindu
female
is
converted into absolute estate. In such
cases, inheritance would be governed by
the Table under Section 174 in view of
Section 172(2)(a)(ii). But in the present
case she died before the aforesaid Act of
1956.

14. It may look paradoxical that
female Bhumidar having absolute right to
transfer,
but
for
the
purposes
of
inheritance, one has to traverse to her
personal law to find, whether she would
have held this property as limited or
absolute owner, and if she had limited
right then in spite of her absolute right
under U.P.Z.A. Act, it had to follow
different course to be governed by Section
172 (2)(a)(i). But this is what legislature
intends. That is why law of inheritance
varies for different properties under
different statute for the same person.

15. In view of our aforesaid
finding, that Smt. Kaushalya Devi held the
land inherited from her father, under the
personal law as limited estate, after her
death such bhumidhari land would be
governed by clause (i) of Section 172(2)(a)
of U.P.Z.A. Act. Thus for inheritance
Section 171 would apply under which
husband is not a heir. In view of this the
appellant claim cannot succeed. The
courts below rightly held that the property
would go to the concerned respondents by
survivorship by virtue of Section 175 as
they were co-tenure holder.

16. So, we do not find any merit
in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Costs on the parties. "

15. In the aforementioned judgement
of Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the inheritence will be governed by
Section 175 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

16. In the present matter also, 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/ Jitendra
as well as private respondent (Sharda Devi)
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 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

17. It is also material to mention that
Consolidation Officer has directed to
record the name of private respondent
(Sharda Devi) only in place of Shanti Devi
but in appeal filed by petitioner/ Jitendra
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.

18. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, no interference
is required against the impugned orders
dated 22.5.2024 and 7.12.2019 passed by
the
consolidation
authorities
in
the
proceeding under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act. The Writ B No. 2525 of
2024 filed by petitioner/ Jitendra against
the orders dated 22.5.2024 and 7.12.2019
passed by consolidation authorities in the
proceeding under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act is dismissed and Writ B No.
318 of 2025 filed by petitioner/ Jitendra for
quashing the proceeding of Rule 109-A of
U.P.C.H. Rules is also dismissed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 538
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 6290 of 2025
&
Writ C No. 6292 of 2025

Krishna Kumari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari, Ramesh
Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Rishabh Tripathi

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the policy decisions of the State
for pairing and merging the school, offend
Article 21-A of the Constitution or any
provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules
framed
by
the
State
Government
thereunder

HEADNOTE
Education - Constitution of India -
Article 21-A - Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
Sections 6, 35, 38 - Uttar Pradesh Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011 - Rule 4(1), (2),
(3) - Pairing of Schools - Government
Orders dated 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025
-
Writ
petitions
challenged
the
Government
Order
dated
16.06.2025,
wherein directions were issued for taking
steps for pairing of the schools managed
under the supervision and control of the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the
State Government - Validity of - Scope of
Judicial
Review.