# Lalsa Yadav v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 518
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-17
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 4491 of 1999
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalsa-yadav-v-board-of-revenue-ors-53007
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 -
Name recorded in revenue records-Order passed
to record the disputed plot in the name of the
Gram Sabha-Revision filed by Petitioner- allowed
stating that the Consolidation Officer's order has
attained finality- opposite party filed a revision
before the Board of Revenue - set aside the
order of the Additional Commissioner -that the
Commissioner cannot allow the revision rather
he can make reference to the Board of Revenue
for allowing or dismissing the revision-exercise
of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner is
in accordance with law-amendment made in U.P.
Land Revenue Act by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997 -
the date of enforcement of amendment is
18.8.1997 and revision in the instant matter has
been filed on 3.11.1997 - no illegality to decide
the revision on merit rather to make reference
before the Board of Revenue.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Ram Kailash Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2002(93) RD 236

## Text

518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

48. OIC, Legal Cell HQ Purva UP &
MP Sub Area to communicate a copy of
this order to the Commanding Officer 20th
Rajputana Rifles.

49. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 518
ORIGINALJURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 4491 of 1999

Lalsa Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. R.P. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Tarun Gaur, Standing Counsel

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 -
Name recorded in revenue records-Order passed
to record the disputed plot in the name of the
Gram Sabha-Revision filed by Petitioner- allowed
stating that the Consolidation Officer's order has
attained finality- opposite party filed a revision
before the Board of Revenue - set aside the
order of the Additional Commissioner -that the
Commissioner cannot allow the revision rather
he can make reference to the Board of Revenue
for allowing or dismissing the revision-exercise
of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner is
in accordance with law-amendment made in U.P.
Land Revenue Act by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997 -
the date of enforcement of amendment is
18.8.1997 and revision in the instant matter has
been filed on 3.11.1997 - no illegality to decide
the revision on merit rather to make reference
before the Board of Revenue.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Ram Kailash Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2002(93) RD 236

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

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment
Application No.8/2024.

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. No ground for impleadment is made
out.

3. The Application is rejected.

Order on Writ Petition.

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun
Gaur, learned standing counsel for the
state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner's father- Jangi Yadav was
granted lease of plot nos. 228, 117, 119,
120, 121 and 122. On the basis of the lease
executed in favour of the petitioner's
father, his name was accordingly recorded
in the revenue records in respect to plot
no.228 only but the name of the petitioner's
father was not recorded over the remaining
plots, accordingly, in the proceeding under
Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act, an order was passed by the revenue
authority for recording the name of the
petitioner's father but later on the order was
recalled. The village in question was
brought under consolidation operation by
way of notification issued under Section
4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the
"U.P. C.H. Act") on 27.6.1981. Against the
2 All. Lalsa Yadav Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
519
basic year entry, an objection under Section
9(A)2 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by the
petitioner's father in respect to plot in
question. The Consolidation Officer vide
order dated 25.9.1986, directed to record
the name of the petitioner's father- Jangi
Yadav over the plot in question on the basis
of lease executed in his favour. In para no.
8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that
no appeal and revision has been filed by
gram
panchayat/land
management
committee against the order of the
Consolidation Officer dated 25.9.1986. In
C.H. Form No.45, name of the petitioner's
father was recorded over the plot in
question. Petitioner's father expired in the
year 1990 and after the death of the
petitioner's father, petitioner and his
brothers have been recorded over the plot
in question. An application dated 26.6.1997
was filed by one Sahabdin, a resident of
village Sarai Haji before the District
Magistrate/Deputy District Director of
Consolidation with the prayer that the
record of Case No.45, under Sections 33/39
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act be
summoned and the entry made in favour of
the petitioner's father may be cancelled.
The Chief Revenue Officer vide order
dated 24.7.1997 directed to record the
disputed plot in the name of the Gram
Sabha. The petitioner challenged the order
dated 24.7.1997 before this Court by way
of Writ Petition No.34748 of 1997 which
was dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 20.10.1997 on the ground of
alternative
remedy.
The
petitioner
challenged the order dated 24.7.1997 by
way of revision before the Commissioner
on 3.11.1997. The aforementioned revision
was heard and allowed by the Addl.
Commissioner vide order dated 12.5.1998,
setting aside the order dated 24.7.1997 on
the ground that the Consolidation Officer in
the title proceeding has passed the order to
record the name of the petitioner's father
over the plot in question and the order has
attained finality. Against the order dated
12.5.1998, Sahabdin filed a revision before
the Board of Revenue and the Board of
Revenue vide order dated 17.8.1998 has set
aside
the
order
of
the
Additional
Commissioner dated 12.5.1998, on the
ground that in view of the provisions
contained under the Act, the order passed
by the Commissioner cannot be sustained
as the Commissioner cannot allow the
revision rather he can make reference to the
Board
of
Revenue
for
allowing
or
dismissing the revision. Hence, this writ
petition on behalf of the petitioner for the
following reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the order dated 17.8.1998,
passed by the respondent no.1 contained
in Annexure No.14 to this Writ Petition.

2. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus,
commanding the respondent not to give
effect in any manner referred to above."

3. This Court entertained the matter on
10.5.1999 and stayed the effect and
operation of the order impugned dated
17.8.1998. In pursuance of the order dated
10.5.1999, no counter has been filed by the
State and the Gaon Sabha.

4. The instant petition was dismissed
under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 against respondent
no.4
who
was
complainant
of
the
proceeding, as such, there is difficulty to
decide the instant petition on merit because
writ petition arises out of the proceeding
under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act and State/Gram Panchayat are
parties in the instant petition.
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that in view of the order dated 25.9.1986
passed by the Consolidation Officer in the
title proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the
U.P. C.H. Act, the order passed for
expunging the petitioner's entry in the
proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. It is further submitted that
the
Additional
Commissioner
after
considering each and every aspect of the
matter, has allowed the revision and set
aside the order passed in the proceeding
under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act. He submitted that the
revision was filed before the Commissioner
and after the amendment made in the Act,
the Commissioner was competent to allow
the revision on merit rather to make
reference before the Board of Revenue. He
submitted that the Board of Revenue has
illegally set aside the order and remanded
the matter again before the Commissioner
for deciding the revision afresh. He
submitted that specific averment has been
made in paragraph no.8 of the writ petition
that order passed by the Consolidation
Officer
has
become
final
as
no
appeal/revision has been filed by any one.
He submitted that C.H. Form No.45 is
annexed along with the writ petition in
order to demonstrate that the petitioner's
father was recorded over the plot in
question on the basis of the order passed by
the Consolidation Officer, as such, there is
no illegality in the order of Addl.
Commissioner, allowing the revision filed
by the petitioner. He submitted that the
impugned order passed by the Board of
Revenue should be set aside and the order
passed by the Additional Commissioner
dated 12.5.1998 should be affirmed.

6. On the other hand, learned standing
counsel submitted that no interference is
required against the order impugned dated
17.8.1998 as under the impugned order
only the matter has been remanded back
before the Commissioner to decide the
revision afresh in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. He submitted that the
Chief
Revenue
Officer
has
rightly
expunged the petitioner's entry which has
been illegally set aside by the Additional
Commissioner in revision. He submitted
that no interference is required in the matter
and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

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 in the proceeding under Section 33/39
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the order
was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer
on 24.7.1997 but in revision the order
passed by the Chief Revenue Officer was
set aside and the entry of the petitioner's
father was maintained. There is also no
dispute about the fact that the Board of
Revenue has set aside the order of the
Additional Commissioner and remitted the
matter again to the Commissioner to decide
the revision afresh.

9.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of the finding recorded by the
Additional Commissioner will be relevant
which is as under:-

न्यायालय अपर आयुक्त आजमर्ढ मण्डल
आजमर्ढ।
यनर्रानी सिंख्या 465/ए सन् 1997 जनपद
आजमर्ढ।
अन्तर्थत धारा 219 िू-राजस्व अधधयनयम।
2 All. Lalsa Yadav Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
521
लालता आदद बनाम र्ाँव सिा।
यनर्थय

प्रस्तुत यनर्रानी अवर न्यायालय
िे आदेश ददनािंि 24/7/97 िे ववरूद्ध
ददनािंि 3/11/97 िो दायर िी र्यी है।
सिंक्षेप में वववाद िे तथ्य इस प्रिार है।

उिय पक्ष िे ववद्वान अधधवक्ता
िी बहस सुनी र्यी। यनर्रानीिताथ िे
ववद्वान
अधधवक्ता
ने
िहा
कि
यनर्रानीिताथ िे पक्ष में आराजजयातनेजाई
िा पर्टर्ा ददनािंि 15/5/64 िो हुआ र्ा।
परर्नाधधिार िे द्वारा दाखखल खाररज िा
आदेश ददनािंि 30/9/64 िो हुआ र्ा। एि
पर्टर्े िे िुछ नम्बरान पर जिंर्ी िा नाम
अिंकित होने से छूर् र्या र्ा। जजसिे सलए
जिंर्ी ने धारा 33/39 एल०आर०एक्र् िे
अन्तर्थत िार्जात दुरुस्तर्ी िा प्रार्थनापत्र
परर्नाधधिार िे समक्ष ददया जजस पर
ददनािंि 21/1/81 िो आदेश पाररत हो र्या।
इसिे ववरूद्ध राममूरत ने यनर्रानी किया
जो चिबन्द िे िारर् ददनािंि 10/12/81
िो अवेर् हो र्यी। कफर चिबन्द अधधिार
िे द्वारा ददनािंि 25/9/8/86 िो जिंर्ी िे
पक्ष में आदेश पाररत हुआ। साहबद न ने
धारा 52 िे प्रिाशन िे वाद मुख्य राजस्व
अधधिार िे समक्ष ददनािंि 26/6/97 िो
एि
प्रार्थनापत्र
ददया।
मुख्य
राजस्व
अधधिार ने र्लत तर िे से जिंर्ी िे पक्ष
में चला आ रहा इन्राज ददनािंि 24/7/97
िो यनरस्त िर ददया। जबकि चिबन्द
अधधिार द्वारा उनिे पक्ष में जो आदेश
पाररत हुआ र्ा उसिी िोई अपील या
यनर्रानी किसी न्यायालय मे नह िं िी र्यी
र्ी।
साहबद न
िे
प्रार्थनापत्र
ददनािंि
26/6/97 िे सम्बन्ध में िोई नोदर्स जिंर्ी
अर्वा उनिे वाररसान िो नह िं द र्यी।
उक्त आधार पर ववद्वान अधधवक्ता ने
िहा कि मुख्य राजस्व अधधिार िा आदेश
ददनािंि 24/7/97 क्षेत्राधधिार िे बाहर पाररत
किया र्या आदेश है। जो यनरस्त किये
जाने योग्य है।

इसिे प्रयतउत्तर में उत्तरवाद िे
ववद्वान अधधवक्ता ने िहा कि अवर
न्यायालय िा आदेश ददनािंि 24/7/97
बबल्िुल सह है। यनर्रानीिताथ िो सुनने
िी
आवश्यिता
नह िं
र्ी।
क्योंकि
अराजीनेजाई से सम्बजन्धत वाद पहले अवेर्
हो र्या र्ा। ववद्वान अधधवक्ता ने यह िी
िहा कि पर्टर्े िे आधार पर जिंर्ी िा नाम
दजथ िरने िा आदेश हुआ र्ा। जजसिे
ववरूद्ध यनर्रानी लजम्बत होने िे ह दौरान
चिबन्द अधधिार िी धारा 4 िे अन्तर्थत
अधधसूचना जार हुई अतः वववाददत आराजी
से जिंर्ी िा नाम खाररज िरने िा आदेश
ददया जाना आवश्यि र्ा। जजसे अवर
न्यायालय ने ददनािंि 24/7/97 िो पाररत
किया है।

उिय पक्ष िो सुनने िे बाद अवर
न्यायालय िी वाद पत्रावल िे अवलोिन
से स्पटर् है कि पर्टर्े िे आधार पर
यनर्रानीिताथ िे वपता जिंर्ी ने धारा 33/39
िे अन्तर्थत छूर्े नम्बरान पर अपना नाम
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अिंकित िरने िा प्रार्थनापत्र ददया और िहा
कि परर्नाधधिार द्वारा पाररत आदेश
ददनािंि 30/9/64 िे सिंदिथ में आराजी नेजाई
पर िूसमधर अिंकित किया जाय। अवर
न्यायालय ने ददनािंि 21/1/81 िो उक्त
प्रार्थनापत्र िे सिंदिथ में िार्जात दुरुस्तर्ी
िा आदेश पाररत किया। जजसिे ववरुद्ध
आयुक्त न्यायालय र्ोरखपुर में यनर्रानी
सिंख्या 252/192/ए 1981 राममूरत बनाम
जिंर्ी दायर हुई जो धारा 4(2) जोत
चिबन्द अधधयनयम िे अन्तर्थत प्रिाशन
िे िारर् ददनािंि 10/12/81 िो अवेर् हो
र्यी। इसिे बाद जिंर्ी ने चिबन्द
न्यायालय में चिबन्द अधधयनयम िी धारा
9ि(2) िे अन्तर्थत आपवत्त दाखखल किया।
जजसमें ददनािंि 25/9/86 िो यह आदेश
पाररत हुआ कि जिंर्ी िा नाम उक्त
आराजजयात पर पर्टर्े िे आधार पर दजथ
किया र्या र्ा अतः नायब तहसीलदार िी
ररपोर्थ ददनािंि 28/1/80 तर्ा उसिे आधार
पर पाररत परर्नाधधिार िे आदेश ददनािंि
21/1/81 िो सत्य मानते हुए िू-असिलेखों
में समन्वय िरने िा आदेश ददया तर्ा
तद़्नुसार अमलदरामद िा आदेश िी ददया।
इस आदेश िे ववरुद्ध िोई िी अपील
अर्वा यनर्रानी किसी िे द्वारा दाखखल
नह िं िी र्यी। धारा 52 िे प्रिाशन िे वाद
जजलाधधिार िे न्यायालय में साहबद न ने
ददनािंि 26/6/97 िो प्रार्थनापत्र देिर जिंर्ी
िे नाम दजथ इन्राज िो यनरस्त िरने िा
यनवेदन किया। जजलाधधिार ने मुख्य
राजस्व अधधिार िी जॉच िरिे आवश्यि
िायथवाह िरने िे सलए ददनािंि 27/6/97 िो
सलखा। मुख्य राजस्व अधधिार ने प्रश्नर्त
आदेश ददनािंि 24/7/97 िो पाररत िरिे
जिंर्ी िे नाम इन्राज यनरस्त िर ददया।
जबकि चिबन्द अधधिार िे आदेश
ददनािंि 25/9/86 िी िोई अपील अर्वा
यनर्रानी नह िं िी र्यी र्ी। मुख्य राजस्व
अधधिार उप-सिंचालि चिबन्द नह िं होते
है। चिबन्द अधधिार िा आदेश ददनािंि
25/9/86 फजी होना साबबत नह िं है। उक्त आदेश
िो यनरस्त िरने िा अधधिार मुख्य राजस्व
अधधिार िो नह िं र्ा। चिबन्द अधधिार िा
आदेश ददनािंि 25/9/86 िायम रहने िे दौरान
आराजीनेजाई पर जिंर्ी अर्वा उनिे वाररसान
िा नाम यनरस्त िरने िा आदेश ददया जाना
उधचत नह िं है। साहबद न िे प्रार्थनापत्र ददनािंि
26/6/97 िे सम्बन्ध में जिंर्ी अर्वा उनिे
वाररसान िो नोदर्स िी नह िं िेजी र्यी है।
उपरोक्त आधार पर अवर न्यायालय िा आदेश
ददनािंि 24/7/97 यनरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश

यनर्रानी स्वीिार िी जाती है।
अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश ददनािंि
24/7/97 यनरस्त किया जाता है। आदेश िी
प्रयत िे सार् अवर न्यायालय िी पत्रावल
वापस िेजी जाय। यहाँ िी पत्रावल दाखखल
दफ्तर हो।

आज यह यनर्थय मेरे द्वारा खुले
न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षररत ददनािंकित िर
उद़्घोवित किया र्या।
2 All. Lalsa Yadav Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
523

( सत्य-प्रयतसलवप )
ह० अपठनीय
12/5/98
अपर आयुक्त
ह० अपठनीय
12/5/98
अपर आयुक्त।

10. The perusal of the finding of fact
recorded by the Additional Commissioner
fully demonstrates that the petitioner's
father was ordered to be recorded over
the
plot
in
question
in
the
title
proceeding,
as
such,
initiation
of
summary proceeding in respect to the plot
in question is abuse of process of law.
The
Additional
Commissioner
has
entertained the revision filed by the
petitioner and allowed the revision,
setting aside the order of the Chief
Revenue
Officer.
The
exercise
of
jurisdiction
of
the
Additional
Commissioner is in accordance with law,
as such, there was no occasion to remit
the matter again before the Additional
Commissioner to decide the revision
afresh.

11. So far as amendment made in
U.P. Land Revenue Act by U.P. Act
No.XX of 1997 is concerned, the date of
enforcement of amendment is 18.8.1997
and revision in the instant matter has
been
filed
on
3.11.1997
before
Commissioner, as such, there was no
illegality to decide the revision on merit
rather to make reference before the Board
of Revenue. The date of filing of revision
before the Commissioner is mentioned in
the first paragraph of revisional order
dated 12.5.1998 which demonstrate that
revision was filed after the amendment by
U.P. Act No.XX of 1997.

12. This Court in the case reported in
2002(93) RD 236, Ram Kailash Yadav
vs. State of U.P. and Others has
considered the scope of amendment made
by U.P. Act No.XX of 1997 and has held
that Commissioner can decide the revision
on merit even if the reference / revision
was filed before 18.8.1997 but reference
was not made upto 18.8.1997. Paragraph
no.6 of the judgment rendered in Ram
Kailash Yadav (supra) will be relevant for
perusal which is as under:-

"6.
From
the
aforesaid
provision, it is clear that earlier no
power of revision was exercised by the
Board of Revenue under Section 219 and
under
Section
218
the
Additional
Commissioner, Collector, the Record
Officer or the Settlement Officer has
jurisdiction to call for and examine the
record
of
any
case
decided
or
proceedings
held
by
any
officer
subordinate to him for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the legality or
propriety of the order passed and as to
the regularity of proceedings, and, if it
were of opinion that the proceeding
taken
or
order
passed
by
such
subordinate officer should be varied,
cancelled or reversed, the reference was
required to be made to the Board of
Revenue. By deletion of provision of
reference by the U. P. Act No. XX of
1997,
now
Section
219
has
been
substituted which gives power of revision
both to Board of Revenue and the
Commissioner
or
Additional
Commissioner or Collector or Record
Officer or Settlement Officer. The
earlier power of reference has also been
deleted and the revisional power has
been
given.
Now
the
Additional
Commissioner, if he is satisfied that any
order passed by subordinate authority is
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required to be reversed it can exercise
the revisional power and there is no need
for reference to the Board of Revenue.
At the time when the revision was filed
in the year 1992, the said revision was
under Section 218 of the U. P. Land
Revenue Act claiming exercise of power
of reference. Section 10 of the U. P. Act
No. XX of 1997 has only saved the
reference which were already referred to
the Board of Revenue on 18.8.1997.
Thus, even if the reference was filed
under Section 218 prior to 18.8.1997 in
which no reference was made to the
Board of Revenue, the same could not
have been continued as the reference
under
Section
218.
Now
the
Commissioner himself has been vested
with the power of revisional jurisdiction
under Section 219. In Revision No. 41 of
1992 which is pending before the
Commissioner, there is no lack of
Jurisdiction in the Commissioner to
exercise his revisional jurisdiction. The
exercise of jurisdiction now has to be
made under Section 219 instead of
Section 218. Merely because in the memo
of revision Section 218 was mentioned
earlier,
it
will
not
Inhibit
the
Commissioner
in
exercising
his
jurisdiction under Section 219 of the U.
P. Land Revenue Act."

13. It is also material to mention that
no counter affidavit has been filed by State
for the last more than 25 years, as such,
there is no option except to decide the
instant petition on the basis of averment
made in the writ petition as mentioned
above.

14.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances, especially, the order dated
25.9.1986 passed by the Consolidation
Officer in the title proceeding which has
attained finality, there is no illegality in the
order
passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
dated
12.5.1998,
accordingly, the impugned order dated
17.8.1998, passed by the respondent
no.1/Board of Revenue is liable to be set
aside and the same is hereby set aside.

15. The writ petition stands allowed
and the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner dated 12.5.1998 is hereby
affirmed.

16. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 524
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 3948 of 2025

Rajneeta ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohammad Danish, Mohammad Iliyas

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

(A)
Constitutional
Law
-
Victim
Compensation
-
Non-payment
of
additional compensation to acid attack
victim - Prime Minister National Relief
Fund - Executive Directions - Authorities
required to fulfill their primary duty to
serve the people, especially ones who
have been disabled by egregious acts of
violence - State Government directed to
issue
a
circular
to
all
the
District
Magistrates to ensure that delay of such
nature is not repeated in future
-