# Kaushal Kishore & Ors v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 757 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Jaspreet Singh, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaushal-kishore-ors-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-chief-revenue-officer-54827
- **Pages:** 70

## Text

_Characters 0–39,973 of 227,860. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39973 for what follows._

510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The current pension shall be paid regularly
month-by-month forthwith. Likewise, due
gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner, also
within a period of two months from the
date of communication of this order.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Principal Secretary,
Nagar
Vikas,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow, the Director, Local Bodies, U.P.,
Lucknow
and
the
Secretary,
Agra
Development Authority, Agra by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 510
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH , J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ B No. 757 of 2024

Kaushal Kishore & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief
Revenue Officer, Gonda & Ors.
 ...Respondent

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) What is the true scope of powers vested with
the Deputy Director of Consolidation in terms of
Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, i.e., whether it is corrective
in nature or adjudicatory;
(ii) Whether the power of reference can be
exercised
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation after a notification is issued under
Section 52(1) of the Act;
(iii) Whether reference proceedings can be
said to be saved in terms of Section 52(2) of
the Act.
HEADNOTE
Reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Nature
and scope - Whether reference power is
inherent or adjudicatory - Exercise of reference
power after de-notification under Section 52(1)
- Saving of reference proceedings under Section
52(2) - Effect of closure of consolidation
operations
-
Jurisdiction
of
consolidation
authorities post de-notification
HELD:
Issue (i): Nature and scope of "Reference"
under Section 48(3).
Disputes between parties which fall in the
categories mentioned in Sections 9-A, 9-B and
9-C, Sections 12 and 21 of the Act have a clear
trajectory, i.e., they are filed before the
Consolidation Officer and decided after affording
an opportunity to lead evidence and hearing by
the
Consolidation
Officer;
the
order
is
appealable before the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and if still dissatisfied, the
aggrieved party can further invoke the provision
of revision before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in terms of Section 48(1) of the
Act. The orders passed under the aforesaid
sections cannot be ordinarily varied, modified or
changed by taking recourse to a reference.
However, there may still be disputes which may
not clearly be within the parameters of Sections
9-A, 9-B or 9-C or Sections 12 and 21 of the Act,
but they may arise while attempting to give
effect to the Scheme of Consolidation, on
account of any error in preparation of records or
anomalies, difficulties and disputes which may
occur on the ground level while implementing
the Scheme on the spot, which come to the
notice
of
the
Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who, being
the first responders in terms of the Act, take
note, hear the parties and, where some genuine
grievance occurs or surfaces, are required to
refer the same to the highest authority, i.e., the
Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The Court held that the power of reference may
arise out of the corrective and executory
jurisdiction but it partakes the nature of
adjudication, and since the power of reference
is somewhat different than the power of
12 All. Kaushal Kishore & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer,
 Gonda & Ors.
511
revision, hence, the legislature has provided for
a
two
tiered
hearing,
one
before
the
Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer
of Consolidation, as the case may be and the
other
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation himself. It was emphasised that
the power of reference is exercised not in an
ordinary course, hence, it should be resorted to
sparingly with utmost caution and only in
expedient circumstances, and that the power of
reference though may arise out of the corrective
and executory jurisdiction but it partakes the
nature of adjudication and it matures through a
decision making process which makes it
adjudicatory in nature and it has the effect of
binding the parties and also makes it subject to
challenge like any order of the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation
passed
in
its
revisional
jurisdiction. Question No. (i) was answered
accordingly. (Paras 112, 116, 137, 187-188)
Issue (ii) & (iii): Effect of de-notification
under Section 52(1) and saving under
Section 52(2).
The Court held that upon the issuance of
notification
under
Section
52(1),
the
consolidation
authorities
lose
their
jurisdiction and any proceeding initiated by
them after the date of notification would be
rendered without jurisdiction and non est,
and further that if the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot suo-moto exercise its
revisional powers under Section 48(1) upon
de-notification, on the same premise it
cannot be held to exercise the power of
reference after the de-notification. It was
held that the power of reference cannot be
exercised
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation after the notification is made
in terms of Section 52(1) of the Act. The
Court
further
held
that
only
those
proceedings, including a reference, which
are pending either before the Constitutional
Courts
or
before
the
Consolidation
Authorities on the date of notification under
Section 52(1) are saved under Section 52(2)
of the Act and not otherwise, and that only
such reference proceedings, i.e., where
reference has been made or in such cases
where hearing on the reference is pending
before the Consolidation Officer/Settlement
Officer of Consolidation or pending before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the
date of notification under Section 52(1),
can be treated to be pending and are saved
under
Section
52(2)
of
the
Act".
Accordingly, Questions Nos. (ii) and (iii)
were answered. (Paras 170-171, 184-186)
(E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Ram
Bahadur
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others, 1974 RD 53 (DB);
Brij Bir Singh and another v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Meerut Camp, Muzaffarnagar and
others, 1987 RD 66;
Mukhtar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh and others, 1993 RD 457 (DB);
Ram Pati v. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Banda and others, 1999 RJ 926;
Abdul Sami and others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others, 2015 (1) ADJ 214;
Shiv Shankar and another v. State of U.P. and
others, 2018 RD (138) 297;
Ghafoor v. Additional Commissioner, 1979 RD 76
(DB);
Raja Ram and others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Lucknow, 1986 RD 387 (DB);
Hari Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh and others, 1989 RD 281 (DB);
Nanhki v. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Pratapgarh and others, 1995 (13) LCD 1;
Ram Narain and others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Barabanki, 2020 (147) RD 185;
Smt. Malti Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2021
(151) RD 3;
Sri Pal and others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
Raebareli
and
others,
MANU/UP/2145/2017;
Raj Karan Singh v. Chief Revenue Officer,
MANU/UP/3069/2019;
Smt. Jagrani @ Ram Jiyayi v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Shrawasti and others, 2024 (164)
RD 238;
Smt.
Anar
Kali
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, 1997 (15) LCD 921 (FB);
State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, (2005) 10
SCC 437;
Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch D 426.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901;
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keyword
Reference - Consolidation Proceedings - Denotification - Jurisdiction after closure - Saving
clause - Adjudicatory power - Corrective
jurisdiction - Finality of consolidation records

CASE ARISING FROM
Reference made by learned Single Judge
noticing conflicting views of different
Single Benches and Division Benches on
the scope of power under Section 48(3) of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 and its exercise after de-notification
under Section 52(1).

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Devraj Singh, Bhavana
Gupta, Uma Shankar Sahai.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta,
Saurabh Yadav, Shyam Mohan Pradhan.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

I N D E X

I

Exordium

2-4

II

Questions Referred

4

III

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
Petitioners

4-10

IV

Submissions on behalf of State and
Respondents

10-13

V

Birds Eye View of the Act

13-35
VI
Conflicting Decisions
35-51
VII
Analysis and Discussions of Question
No.1

52-73
VIII
Analysis and Discussions of Questions
No. 2 & 3

74-93
IX
Sequitur
93-94

I EXORDIUM:-

1. This Full Bench endeavors to
answer seminal questions of importance
relating to the scope and exercise of powers
under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') by the
Authorities empowered under the Act and
whether such powers can be exercised after
de-notification of the village from the
consolidation
operations
in
terms
of
Section 52(1) and (2) of the Act.

2. A large number of petitions
involving the aforesaid questions flood this
Court and more often than not, keep
engaging the attention of this Court. In one
such case, in WRIT-B No.757 of 2024 -
Kaushal Kishore and others v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation / Chief Revenue
Officer, Gonda and others, a learned Single
Judge of this Court noticing the divergent
opinions on the issue rendered by the
different Single Judges and different
Division Benches of this Court, found it
appropriate to refer the matter to a Larger
Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

3.
The
reference
order
dated
20.12.2024 noticed a string of judgments
which propagated the view that the
consolidation authorities do not loose their
jurisdiction even after de-notification of the
village under Section 52(1) and (2) of the
Act, rather they retain the powers to correct
the records.

4. The judgments approving the
aforesaid view are (i) Ram Bahadur v.
DDC and others, 1974 RD 53 (DB); (ii)
Brij Bir Singh and another v. DDC,
Meerut Camp of Muzaffarnagar and
others, 1987 RD 66; (iii) Mukhtar v.
DDC, Azamgarh and others, 1993 RD
457 (DB); (iv) Ram Pati v. DDC, Banda
and others, 1999 RJ 926; (v) Abdul Sami
and others v. DDC and others, 2015 (1)
ADJ 214 and (vi) Shiv Shankar and
another v. State of U.P. and others, 2018
RD (138) 297.
12 All. Kaushal Kishore & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer,
 Gonda & Ors.
513

5. The other set of decisions, which
propagate the view that after de-notification
of the village, the consolidation authorities
are denuded of their jurisdiction, except in
cases where the proceedings are saved in
terms of Section 52(2) of the Act, are (i)
Ghafoor v. Additional Commissioner,
1979 RD 76 (DB); (ii) Raja Ram and
others v. DDC, Lucknow, 1986 RD 387
(DB); (iii) Hari Ram v. DDC, Azamgarh
and others, 1989 RD 281 (DB); (iv)
Nanhki v. DDC, Pratapgarh and others,
1995 (13) LCD 1; (v) Ram Narain and
others v. DDC Barabanki, 2020 (147) RD
185; (vi) Smt. Malti Devi v. State of U.P.
and others, 2021 (151) RD 3; (vii) Sri Pal
and others v. DDC, Raebareli and
others, MANU/UP/2145/2017; (viii) Raj
Karan Singh v. Chief Revenue Officer,
MANU/UP/3069/2019
and
(ix)
Smt.
Jagrani
@
Ram
Jiyayi
v.
DDC,
Shrawasti and others, 2024 (164) RD
238.

6. Looking into the gravity of the
questions involved and its impact on a large
number of petitions, this Court invited the
Members of the Bar to address this Court
on the questions referred, for a threadbare
consideration of the law relating to the
questions to be resolved by this Full Bench.

7. Primarily, on behalf of the petitioners
Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel supported
the view that after de-notification of the
village under Section 52(1) of the Act, the
consolidation
authorities
lose
their
jurisdiction, except where the proceedings are
saved in terms of Section 52(2) of the Act.

8. Members of the Bar, who addressed
the Court were led by Dr. R.S. Pandey,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Ankit Pandey, who also advanced his
submissions in favour of the view that
Consolidation Authorities after the denotification
lose
their
jurisdiction,
including to entertain a reference, except
where the proceedings are saved under
Section 52(2) of the Act.

9. Per contra, Shri Pritish Kumar,
learned Additional Advocate General for
the State of U.P. assisted by Shri Nishant
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel along with Shri Vishwas Saraswat,
Shri Amal Rastogi and Shri Utkash
Srivastava, contended that the authorities
retain power after de-notification, including
the power to entertain and decide a
reference. This view was also subscribed
by the other learned Members of the Bar,
who made submissions, namely, Shri Arun
Kumar, Shri Saurabh Yadav and Shri Ishan
Kumar Gupta.

II QUESTIONS REFERRED:-

10. The questions referred to this Full
Bench are as under: -

(i) What is the true scope of
powers vested with the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in terms of Section 48(3) of
the Act i.e. to say whether it is corrective in
nature or adjudicatory;

(ii)
Whether
the
power
of
reference can be exercised by the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
after
a
notification is issued in terms of Section
52(1) of the Act;

(iii)
Whether
the
reference
proceedings can be said to be saved in
terms of Section 52(2) of the Act.

III SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONERS: -

11. Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior
Counsel and Shri U.S. Sahai, learned
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the power of reference as per Section 48(3)
of the Act, as envisaged in the U.P.
Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, was
not a part of the original legislative scheme.
The said provision came to be incorporated
in the Act by an amendment which came
into effect on 02.03.1963. By virtue of the
amendment, the power of reference was
introduced and bestowed on Deputy
Director of Consolidation (in short, 'the
DDC'), who is the highest authority in the
hierarchy of adjudicating authorities under
the Act.

12.
It
was
contended
that
the
consolidation operations begin in the
village by notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act and the same are concluded by
de-notifying the village by issuing a
notification under Section 52(1) of the Act.
Between these two notifications, the
consolidation
authorities
continue
to
exercise their powers as conferred under
the Act.

13. It was submitted that only such
proceedings under the Act are saved which
fall within the ambit of Section 52(2) of the
Act. Such proceedings are the ones which on
the date of such notification made under
Section 52(1) of the Act are pending before
the Constitutional Courts or any of the
Consolidation Authorities and any such other
proceedings which require the orders passed,
by the Constitutional Courts and other
Consolidation Authorities, after the denotification in terms of Section 52(1) of the
Act to be implemented and given effect to.

14. It was also urged that powers of
reference can be exercised only by the
DDC, however, such powers cannot be
exercised suo motu which is in contrast to
the powers of revision conferred on the
DDC in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act.
The revisional powers can be exercised by
the DDC even suo motu, but the same is
not true insofar as the powers of reference
is concerned, which necessarily has to
originate before the Consolidation Officer
(hereinafter referred to as 'CO') or the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
(hereinafter referred to as 'SOC').

15. It was, thus, urged that where the
power of reference emanates at the core
level i.e. before the CO and the SOC and in
terms of Section 52(1) of the Act, when the
village is de-notified and the CO and SOC
loose their jurisdiction, it cannot be
gainfully urged or contended that the same
CO or SOC can retain their jurisdiction for
the purpose of making a reference to the
DDC under Section 48(3) of the Act, as this
would be an incongruous proposition.

16. It was further submitted that the
manner in which Section 48(3) of the Act
has been worded, would indicate that
invocation of power of reference is
bifurcated in two parts. First, when a matter
comes before the CO or the SOC as the
case may be, in course of discharge of their
respective duties and he finds that certain
issues or some matter requires attention and
otherwise the matter or issue has already
crossed a certain stage of the consolidation
operations and it is not within their domain
to look into it, then they can refer such
issue or matter by reference to the DDC.
However, prior to making such a reference,
the CO and the SOC are required to afford
an opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. Second, the other part of that
Section provides that once the DDC takes
note of such a reference then he too is
obliged to decide the same after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.
12 All. Kaushal Kishore & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer,
 Gonda & Ors.
515

17. Sub-section (2) of Section 48 of
the Act further states that while deciding a
reference, the DDC could exercise all the
power provided in sub-section (1) of
Section 48 of the Act, which necessarily is
the power of revision. Therefore, it was
urged that in terms of Section 52(1) of the
Act, upon de-notification, if the CO, SOC
and DDC loose their jurisdiction then there
can be no occasion for empowering the
authorities
to
retain
any
jurisdiction
through the window of reference and if it
was so envisaged then it could have very
well been incorporated in the Act itself,
which has not been done explicitly.

18.
It
was
urged
that
detailed
procedure is prescribed for conducting the
consolidation operations, as shall be
evident from a perusal of the Act and the
Rules.
Moreover,
there
are
certain
executive instructions issued from time to
time which have been complied and are
known as the U.P. Consolidation Manual. It
is from these three sources that the entire
consolidation operations are carried out.

19. The Scheme of the Act envisages
that once the consolidation operations are
complete only then the recommendation is
made for issuing a notification under
Section 52 (1) of the Act. Accordingly,
when by and large, the consolidation
operations have achieved their objective
only then the notification under Section
52(1) of the Act is issued and its
consequence is that the Consolidation
Authorities are denuded of their jurisdiction
as the village stands de-notified.

20. If such is the consequence of denotification then there can be no reason to
leave some residuary powers with the
CO/SOC/DDC as the case may be, in the
garb of reference proceedings as that would
run counter to the Act as then no proceedings
would attain finality and it would also create
a source of manipulation as whichever
matter, though otherwise had attained
finality, could be reopened by taking recourse
to the powers of reference, which cannot be
the intention of the Act.

21. It was also submitted that Section 27
of the Act clearly provides that after the new
records are prepared in terms of the Act, the
same attain presumptive value and after the
de-notification, if at all, there is any
discrepancy or any right is claimed contrary
to the said entries, then such claims can be
adjudicated and if required the entries can be
rectified by the revenue authorities, but not
by the consolidation authorities.

22. It was also urged, illustratively, that
there may be a situation where some
proceedings may have been decided (prior to
the notification under Section 52(1) of the
Act). However, the Consolidation Authorities
while preparing the records discover some
discrepancy, then in such circumstances, the
CO and the SOC, if find that any order has
attained finality and by giving effect to the
said order, some right of another person is
affected, or some discrepancy is discovered
which may not fall within the ambit of
Section 42-A of the Act then in such
circumstances, the CO or the SOC can make
a reference to the DDC, who may adjudicate ,
after putting the parties to notice and after
hearing them. Any proceeding of this nature
which is in aid of proper conduct of
consolidation operations, maintenance of the
records and entries contained in such
consolidation record, has a sanctity attached
and is binding on parties.

23. Submission was that in such
circumstances, the powers of reference can
be exercised and by subscribing to such a
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view, the provisions of the Act can be
harmoniously construed. Nevertheless, it
cannot be gainfully proposed that this
power
can
be
exercised
post
the
notification under Section 52(1) of the Act
as such proceedings cannot be termed to be
saved in terms of Section 52(2) of the Act.
The proceedings which are saved in terms
of Section 52(2) of the Act are the ones
which remain pending either before the
Consolidation Officer, the Appellate or the
Revisional authorities under the Act or
pending before the Constitutional Courts, at
the time of issuance of notification under
Section 52(1) of the Act.

24. It was thus submitted that the
powers under Section 48(3) of the Act are
adjudicatory but such adjudication has to
take place prior to the notification under
Section 52(1) of the Act and it cannot be
initiated after the de-notification nor such a
reference is saved in terms of Section 52(2)
of the Act.

25.
Dr.
Pandey,
learned
Senior
Counsel while assisting the Court on the
questions before it, specifically urged that
the provisions of the Act and the Rules
must be seen in context with certain
provisions
contained
in
the
U.P.
Consolidation
Manual
and
he
has
specifically referred to Regulation 201(Ga),
236(Ga) and 240(Ga) contained in ChapterX under the Heading 'Correction of
Records'. He urged that Regulations 602(4)
and 606 in Chapter XII of the U.P.
Consolidation Manual indicate that such
powers of correction can be exercised only
prior to notification under Section 52(1) of
the Act.

26. It was urged that the basic object of
the Act is to allot compact area in lieu of
scattered plots to the tenure holders to
facilitate large scale cultivation. The Act does
not deal with the substantive rights, which are
primarily governed by the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and
now after it has been repealed, by the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006. The U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 in that context is only
a procedural Act and it lays special emphasis
on the consolidation of plots for the tenure
holders
for
giving
encouragement
to
agriculture.

27. According to Dr. Pandey there are
clear indications in the Act that the powers of
reference in terms of Section 48(3) of the Act
can only be exercised for the purposes of
ensuring that the orders passed during the
consolidation operations prior to notification
issued under Section 52(1) of the Act are
given effect to and while doing so or while
preparing the records if any discrepancy is
noticed and by correcting such record, the
right of some tenure holder is affected or in
order to give effect to an order passed in
favour of one tenure holder some other tenure
holder is affected then in such circumstances,
the CO or SOC may find it difficult to settle
such a matter and to avoid any overlapping of
jurisdiction or to avoid any error of exercise
of jurisdiction, which may vitiate the
proceedings, hence, in such circumstances, a
reference can be made and the DDC has been
conferred with the powers to decide the same
after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the parties in terms of Section 48(1) of the
Act with the ultimate object that the final
records be prepared, error free, so that upon
de-notification of the village under Section
52(1) of the Act, the final records can be
handed over to the revenue authorities and
necessarily such powers can be exercised
only prior to de-notification of the village.

28. It was submitted that in the Act,
against an order passed under Section 9-A
12 All. Kaushal Kishore & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer,
 Gonda & Ors.
517
of the Act, an appeal is provided before the
SOC prescribing a limitation of 21 days.
However, there is no limitation for filing a
revision under Section 48(1) or 48(3) of the
Act. Thus, where timelines have been
prescribed and there is no timeline
prescribed in terms of Section 48(3) of the
Act even then some reasonable timeline has
to be read into it. What would be a
reasonable period can be seen on the basis
of the scheme and objects of the Act but it
cannot be left without any control as that
would lead to an anomaly, leaving a
window open for manipulation and it may
result in doing more mischief than what the
Act in the first place tries to curtail.
Actually, this very concern was voiced in
the DO dated 6th November, 2023 issued
by the Consolidation Commissioner, as
noticed in the reference order.

29. Moreover, in certain circumstances
where a party has any grievance and some
discrepancy is noticed after the notification
under Section 52(1) of the Act and if he is
permitted to get such right or discrepancy
rectified
through
adjudication
by
Consolidation Authorities then it will have
the impact of diluting the bar of Section 11C of the Act and it will also rob the orders
and records prepared of its sanctity and
finality.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioners
Shri U.S. Sahai and Dr. Pandey, learned
Senior Counsel while canvassing the above
noted propositions and in support of their
contentions have referred to the decisions of
this Court in Ghafoor (supra); Raja Ram
(supra); Hari Ram (supra); Nanhki (supra);
Ram Narain (supra); Smt. Malti Devi (supra)
and Smt. Jagrani @ Ram Jiyayi (supra).

31. Reliance has also been placed on a
decision of the Apex Court in Babu Verghese
and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and
others, (1999) 3 SCC 422 and a decision of
this Court in Krishna v. State of U.P., 2014
(123) LCD 754 (DB) to contend that if the Act
prescribes something to do in a particular
manner then it should be done in that manner
alone and not otherwise. Decision of this
Court in Mohd. Kallu v. D.D.C. and others,
2002 (93) RD 206 and Ram Pujan and
others v. D.D.C., Gazipur and others, 2000
(91) RD 433 has been referred to indicate the
scope of powers conferred on the DDC.

IV SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF STATE AND RESPONDENTS: -

32. Shri Pritish Kumar, learned
Additional Advocate Government for the
State of U.P., leading the submissions on
behalf of the State and the private
respondents has structured his submissions
to proffer that the powers of reference in
terms of Section 48(3) of the Act is in the
nature of inherent power which is available
with the DDC to do complete justice
between the parties but is to be exercised in
extraordinary
cases
where
manifest
injustice has been occasioned.

33. It was further urged that the
powers to initiate a reference is necessarily
vested with an authority subordinate to the
DDC that is by a CO or the SOC but the
inbuilt mechanism is such that before a
reference is actually made to the DDC, first
it must pass the scrutiny of referring
authority, that is the CO or the SOC, who is
obliged to confer a right of hearing to the
parties concerned and only if it finds that
the matter requires the attention of the
highest authority, that is the DDC, only
then it would make such a reference.

34. When the reference reaches the
DDC, he examines the reference and the
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
DDC is also obliged to afford an
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. If he comes to the conclusion
that it requires some indulgence then the
DDC would pass the necessary orders.
Section 48(2) of the Act clearly provides
that the DDC while exercising its powers of
reference would be entitled to exercise all
such powers as are vested in him in terms
of Section 48(1) of the Act. Needless to
say, such powers are very wide and this
goes on to indicate that such powers would
be used to ensure that any gross injustice or
any patent illegality, if occurred, may not
be perpetuated.

35. Since, the powers under Section
48(3) of the Act are deep and pervasive and
akin to inherent powers, hence they are to
be exercised with caution, but at the same
time, it also must be noticed that the
powers under Section 48(3) are not
circumscribed
by
any
condition
or
limitation, giving a clear indication that
such powers have been conferred to meet
any unexpected contingency.

36. Elaborating his submissions, the
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
submitted that certain errors which may not
be clerical or arithmetical so as to fall
within the ambit of Section 42-A of the Act
but if required to be corrected, can be done
in terms of Section 48(3) of the Act. It was
also urged that certain matters which may
be
pending
before
the
consolidation
authorities at any stage, that is to say before
the CO or SOC in appeal or before the
DDC in revision and then orders are passed
subsequent to the notification under Section
52(1) of the Act, then to carry out or
implement such orders, the power of
reference can be utilized. Even in cases,
where the consolidation authorities for
some reason have failed to incorporate an
order passed during the consolidation
operations which was necessary to be done,
hence, to meet such situation, the powers of
reference can be invoked.

37. Learned Additional Advocate
General further urged that the manner in
which the aforesaid Section 48 of the Act
came to be amended in the year 1962 and
power of reference was conferred along
with the power of revision, indicates that
while exercising the power of reference, the
DDC could use its revisional powers, this is
a clear indicator that in matters where
certain discrepancies may have occurred
during
consolidation
operations
and
requires correction then even post denotification,
in
order
to
meet
such
contingencies the powers of reference can
be used to correct, adjudicate and also reexamine any finding, either of law or of
fact which may have been recorded either
by the CO or the SOC, in order to do the
complete justice between the parties.

38. This power is so conferred and can
be exercised without any fetter of even
Section 52(1) of the Act as it is born out of
necessity, otherwise if an error which may
have occurred while the consolidation
operations were in progress and it was not
discovered
or
rectified
during
the
consolidation operations, then post denotification such errors would continue to
be reflected in the records and it may not be
amenable
for
rectification/correction/adjudication as then
the bar of Section 49 of the Act would
operate and the Civil and the Revenue
Courts would not be in a position to undo
the wrong. It is for the aforesaid reason that
the power under Section 48(3) is saved and
can be exercised by the authority post the
de-notification under Section 52(1) of the
Act.
12 All. Kaushal Kishore & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer,
 Gonda & Ors.
519

39. It has further been urged that
departmental
order
dated
06.11.2023
mentioned in the reference order passed by
the learned Single Judge in Kaushal
Kishore (supra), is merely advisory and it
cannot be said to have an overbearing
effect on the statutory provisions. In
support
of
his
submissions,
learned
Additional Advocate General has referred
to the decisions of this Court in Sidh
Narain v. D.D.C.: 2008 (1) AWC 219 and
another decision of Parag Memorial
Education
Institution
v.
Gram
Panchayat
Sarehri
and
others:
2024:AHC-LKO:21919.

40. The crux of the entire submissions
on behalf of the respondents State and
some other Members of the Bar namely,
Shri Saurabh Yadav, Shri Arun Kumar and
Shri Ishan Kumar Gupta, who adopted the
line of reasoning proposed by the learned
Additional Advocate General, is that the
power under Section 48(3) of the Act is
adjudicatory and is not merely corrective as
the DDC has wide powers which are akin to
inherent powers and can be exercised to do
complete justice between the parties or to
meet any unexpected contingency and such
powers can be invoked even after the
notification under Section 52(1) of the Act.
Since the powers are extraordinary, hence
they are to be used sparingly and no straightjacket formula for universal applicability can
be laid down, rather exercise of powers under
Section 48(3) of the Act will have to be tested
on case to case basis.

V BIRDS EYE VIEW OF THE
ACT:-

41. At the outset, it will be appropriate to
consider the entire scheme and nature of the
Act to ascertain the nature of the powers
exercised by the Authorities and for a better
understanding of the Act. For this the Court
would delve into the Act of 1953, Rules of
1954 and certain Forms which are appended to
the Act and are prepared by the Consolidation
Authorities which are of significance and also
refer to certain provisions contained in the
U.P.
Consolidation
Manual
for
a
comprehensive understanding.

42. The Act of 1953 was enacted
primarily to consolidate the agricultural
holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh with the
larger
object
of
giving
impetus
and
development to agriculture. It will be
worthwhile to keep in mind that soon after
independence, major steps were taken to boost
agriculture and to achieve the aforesaid, a very
important piece of legislation was introduced
in the State of Uttar Pradesh namely the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act of 1950). The Act of 1950 abolished
the complicated and numerous categories of
tenure
holders,
both
proprietary
and
cultivatory and also introduced several
provisions for securing the rights of the tenure
holders and this apart, the Act of 1950
introduced reforms for the benefit of landless
persons and persons belonging to marginalized
sections.

43. Having secured that, the State took
the next step to consolidate the land holdings
so that all the land held by a tenure-holder
could be in a Block which was beneficial for
promoting large scale agricultural activities
making it more viable and productive, apart
from the fact that it would result in
substantially reducing the boundary disputes
and would also make it feasible for irrigation,
help in controlling pests and insects, insulating
the crops, thereby increasing the yields.

44. This led to the advent of the U.P.
C.H. Act of 1953 and it repealed the earlier
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.H. Act of 1939. The Apex Court in Attar
Singh v. State of U.P. and others :1959
RD 149 (SC), considered the scope and
object of the Act and the relevant portion
reads as under: -

"3. Before we take these points
seriatim, it is useful to refer to the
background of this legislation. As far back
as 1939, the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act 8 of 1939, was passed. It was,
however, of little effect, because it could
only be applied when more than one-third
of the proprietors of the cultivated area of a
village
applied
for
an
order
of
consolidation of the village. It was,
therefore, felt that some kind of compulsion
would be necessary in order to achieve
consolidation of holdings in villages. That
consolidation would result in improving
agricultural production goes without saying
and it was with the object of encouraging
the
development
of
agriculture
that
consolidation schemes with a compulsory
character were taken up in various States,
after the recommendation of The Famine
Inquiry Commission 1944, in its Final
Report; (See p. 263). The State Bombay
was the first to pass an Act called the
Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, (Bom 62 of
1947). This was followed by the impugned
Act in Uttar Pradesh. The object of the Act
is to allot a compact area in lieu of
scattered plots to tenure-holders so that
large scale cultivation may be possible with
all its attendant advantages. Thus, by the
reduction of boundary-lines saving of land
takes place and the number of boundarydisputes is reduced. There is saving of time
in the management of fields inasmuch as
the farmer is saved from travelling from
field to field, which may be at considerable
distances from each other. Proper barriers
such as fences, hedges and ditches can be
erected around a compact area to prevent
trespassing and thieving. It would further
be easier to control irrigation and drainage
and disputes over water would be reduced
considerably where compact areas are
allotted to tenure-holders. Lastly, the
control of pests, insects and plant-disease is
made easier where farmers have compact
areas under cultivation. These advantages
resulting from consolidation of holdings are
intended to encourage the development of
agriculture and larger production of food
grains, which is the necessity of the day.

4. With these objects in mind, the
Act was passed by the U.P. Legislature in
1953 and received the assent of the
President on March 4, 1954. It was
published in the gazette on March 8, 1954,
and declarations under Section 4 were
made for the major part of the State of
Uttar Pradesh, including the petitioners'
village, in July, 1954.

5. The scheme of the Act is as
follows:-

When consolidation of a village
is taken up, the first thing that is done is to
correct the revenue records, and Sections 7
to 12 deal with that. Then comes the second
stage
of
preparing
what
are
called
statements of principles; (see Sections 14 to
18). Objections to these principles are
entertained and decided and thereafter the
principles are confirmed under Section 18.
Then comes the third stage (vide Sections
19 to 23), which deals with the preparation
of the statement of proposals. Objections to
this are also invited and disposed of, and
then proposals are confirmed under Section
23.
After
the
proposals
have
been
confirmed, we come to the last stage in
which
the
confirmed
proposals
are
enforced; (see Sections 24 onwards). It will
be clear therefore from the objects of the
Act and the advantages that accrue from its
implementation that it is a piece of
12 All. Kaushal Kishore & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer,
 Gonda & Ors.
521
legislation, which should be a boon to the
tenure-holders in a village and should also
lead to the development of agriculture and
increase of food production. ..."

45. This Court in Moolchand v. DDC
and others; 2007 (103) RD 469 considered
the scope and the object of the Act in
paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 and the same
reads as under: -

"10. The U.P.C.H. Act does not
deal with the grant of substantive rights to
be given to the tenure holders. Therefore, it
is clear that substantive rights are to be
governed by the provisions contained in the
U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951. The U.P.C.H. Act
is only procedural with regard to the
consolidation of holdings.

11. After start of consolidation
proceedings the Revenue Court or the Civil
Court cannot decide claims to land and
such pending proceedings are to abate in
view of section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The
abatement is only for adjudication of rights
by the Consolidation Courts with regard to
pending cases. Further bar is only that fresh
institution of cases may be made before the
Consolidation Courts under section 9/12 of
the U.P.C.H. Act. The Revenue Court and
Civil Court may not entertain such matters
during consolidation period. The U.P.C.H.
Act does not provide for devolution,
restriction on transfer, extinction of rights,
conferment of rights, classes of tenure, etc.

12. The effect upon notification
under section 4 or 4-A of the U.P.C.H.