# Mohan Lal Srivastava & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 780
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 719 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-lal-srivastava-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53760
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioners, claiming possession
over land recorded as Gaon Sabha Banjar land,
were entitled to protection or settlement of such
land in their favour u/s 9 of Act, 1950, or
alternatively, u/s 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, on the plea that land in their occupation
was of abadi nature and had been held by their
ancestors since prior to enforcement of U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1952, and further, whether orders of
eviction passed u/s 67(1) of Code of 2006 and
affirmed in appeal u/s 67(5) suffered from any
illegality or violation of petitioners' lawful rights
or principles of natural justice.

Headnotes
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1952 - ss. 9, 132, - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - ss. 63, 64, 67-A,
67(1), 67(5) - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 - Rule 67 (2) - U.P. Consolidation of
Holding Act 1953 - Section 52 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. VIII R 5
Petitioners, claimed to be in long-standing
possession of land originally recorded as
old
Khasra
No.
137,
subsequently
renumbered as Khasra No. 1275 during
consolidation proceedings, asserting that
it was of abadi nature and had been held
by
their
ancestors
since
prior
to
enforcement of U.P. Z.A.L.R.Act, 1950
(U.P. Act No. 1 of 1952) - They contended
that, by virtue of Section 9 of said Act,
abadi site stood settled with them and
that they had acquired lawful rights over
same
-
Proceedings,
however,
were
initiated u/s 67(1) of Revenue Code,
2006, treating land as Gaon Sabha Banjar
land and directing their eviction along
with imposition of damages
- Their
appeals
u/s
67(5)
were
dismissed,
affirming
eviction
-
Petitioners
approached High Court challenging orders
as illegal and violative of their rights,
contending that land was not public utility
land u/s 132 of Act of 1952, and
alternatively, that they were entitled to
settlement u/s 67-A of Revenue Code,
2006 - State resisted petitions, asserting
that land was recorded as Banjar Category
5(3) in consolidation records since 1990,
never formed part of old Gata No. 137 as
alleged, and was required for extension of
Kushinagar International Airport, thereby
rendering
petitioners'
occupation
unauthorized and their claim untenable in
law.
Held: To claim the benefit of Section 9,
petitioners were required to establish lawful
possession after enforcement of Act No. 1 of
1952, however, no document was produced to
substantiate such claim - Petitioners' claim rests
on two grounds i.e. settlement of land u/s 9 of
Act No. 1 of 1952 or, in alternative, extension of
benefit u/s 67-A for settlement in their favour -
Petitioners have failed to substantiate their
claim, as consolidation proceedings concluded in
village in 1990 with notification u/s 52 of Act
of 1953 - Gata No. 137, claimed by them,
now stands subdivided into Gata Nos. 25 to
28, recorded as chak, bhumidhari land, chak
marg, and nali, with no link to petitioners -
Their
claim
u/s
9
is
contradicted
by
unchallenged
consolidation
and
rev

## Text

780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presence of all the relatives and friends and
villagers and performed by a Priest and
there facts have to be established in order
ot prove a valid marriage.

26.
Statement
of
Anil
Kumar,
Regional Lekhpal and Shatrohan are mere
hearsay evidence and cannot fulfill the
lacunae of any direct or cogent evidence in
this regard and consequently merely on the
basis of the said evidence the findings has
been returned with regard to marriage of
Hardei. It is in the aforesaid reasons, this
Court find itself unable to accept findings
recorded by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow
in
his
order
dated
14.06.2011
and
accordingly this Court finds that even the
orders of the appellate authority and the
revisional authority are arbitrary having
upheld the order of Tehsildar, Sadar dated
14.06.2011.

27. In the present case, contrary to oral
assertion made by petitioners while moving
the application U/S 34 of Land Revenue
Act, late Hardei while filing the application
for recall in paragraph No. 8 had clearly
denied that she had remarried after the
death of Govinde.

28. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
burden of proof lay upon the private
respondents to establish that a valid
marriage had taken place in accordance
with Hindu rites and rituals which they
have clearly failed to establish. There is no
evidence
let
by
the
petitioners
to
demonstrate that late Hardei had validly
married Haripal and in absence of any such
evidence no finding can be returned with
regard to remarriage of Hardei. The proof
of marriage is a matter of fact and the
burden of proof lay upon the private
respondents to establish the same and they
failed to establish the said fact before the
Tehsildar, Sadar and accordingly the
findings returned in favour of the private
respondents and and against the Hardei was
illegal and arbitrary, liable to be set aside.

29. In the present case, the findings
regarding Smt. Hardei's alleged remarriage
are ex facie perverse. There is no proof of
the essential ceremonies, of marriage being
performed nor has any custom been
established; instead, the courts below relied
on vague assertions, stray documents, and
revenue
entries,
while
ignoring
contemporaneous
records
where
Smt.
Hardei continued to describe herself as a
widow. The testimonies on which reliance
was placed are inconsistent and fail to
discharge the burden of proving a valid
remarriage. The conclusions drawn are thus
contrary to both evidence and law, and
cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court
would be justified in setting aside the
findings despite their concurrence.

30. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
writ petition is allowed. The orders dated
11.08.2000
,
14.06.2011,
17.10.2011,
14.10.2019 are set aside.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 780
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 719 of 2022
&
Connected With Other Matters

Mohan Lal Srivastava & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
8 All. Mohan Lal Srivsatava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
781
M.N. Singh, Mahesh Narain Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioners, claiming possession
over land recorded as Gaon Sabha Banjar land,
were entitled to protection or settlement of such
land in their favour u/s 9 of Act, 1950, or
alternatively, u/s 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, on the plea that land in their occupation
was of abadi nature and had been held by their
ancestors since prior to enforcement of U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1952, and further, whether orders of
eviction passed u/s 67(1) of Code of 2006 and
affirmed in appeal u/s 67(5) suffered from any
illegality or violation of petitioners' lawful rights
or principles of natural justice.

Headnotes
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1952 - ss. 9, 132, - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - ss. 63, 64, 67-A,
67(1), 67(5) - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 - Rule 67 (2) - U.P. Consolidation of
Holding Act 1953 - Section 52 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. VIII R 5
Petitioners, claimed to be in long-standing
possession of land originally recorded as
old
Khasra
No.
137,
subsequently
renumbered as Khasra No. 1275 during
consolidation proceedings, asserting that
it was of abadi nature and had been held
by
their
ancestors
since
prior
to
enforcement of U.P. Z.A.L.R.Act, 1950
(U.P. Act No. 1 of 1952) - They contended
that, by virtue of Section 9 of said Act,
abadi site stood settled with them and
that they had acquired lawful rights over
same
-
Proceedings,
however,
were
initiated u/s 67(1) of Revenue Code,
2006, treating land as Gaon Sabha Banjar
land and directing their eviction along
with imposition of damages
- Their
appeals
u/s
67(5)
were
dismissed,
affirming
eviction
-
Petitioners
approached High Court challenging orders
as illegal and violative of their rights,
contending that land was not public utility
land u/s 132 of Act of 1952, and
alternatively, that they were entitled to
settlement u/s 67-A of Revenue Code,
2006 - State resisted petitions, asserting
that land was recorded as Banjar Category
5(3) in consolidation records since 1990,
never formed part of old Gata No. 137 as
alleged, and was required for extension of
Kushinagar International Airport, thereby
rendering
petitioners'
occupation
unauthorized and their claim untenable in
law.
Held: To claim the benefit of Section 9,
petitioners were required to establish lawful
possession after enforcement of Act No. 1 of
1952, however, no document was produced to
substantiate such claim - Petitioners' claim rests
on two grounds i.e. settlement of land u/s 9 of
Act No. 1 of 1952 or, in alternative, extension of
benefit u/s 67-A for settlement in their favour -
Petitioners have failed to substantiate their
claim, as consolidation proceedings concluded in
village in 1990 with notification u/s 52 of Act
of 1953 - Gata No. 137, claimed by them,
now stands subdivided into Gata Nos. 25 to
28, recorded as chak, bhumidhari land, chak
marg, and nali, with no link to petitioners -
Their
claim
u/s
9
is
contradicted
by
unchallenged
consolidation
and
revenue
records for the past 35 years and petitioners
made no effort to challenge the adverse
revenue entries - It was only when eviction
proceedings were initiated against them and
notices having been served upon them, they
filed appeal and raised plea of Section 9 -
Realizing weakness of their claim, petitioners
alternatively sought settlement u/s 67-A,
however, being outside preferential category
of Section 64, they are not entitled to such
allotment of land - Facts and pleadings reveal
that land is required for ILS (Instrument
Landing System)-Glide Path of upcoming
international airport, and Gaon Sabha is
transferring land for extension of airport and
runway central line - In view of facts and
circumstances, no interference with impugned
orders is warranted, and petitioners are liable
to eviction from Gaon Sabha land recorded as
Banjar Category 5(3) since 1990 consolidation
proceedings. [Paras 15, 25 to 29] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Manorey @ Manohar v. Board of Revenue, AIR
2003 SC 4102; Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P.
and others, 2023 (160) RD 204; Sharda
Industries through partner Mayank v. The
Additional District Collector, District Unnao and
others, Writ-C No. 9500 of 2022 decided on
14.2.2023; Pushpa Pathak v. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C No. 9433 of 2023 decided on
28.10.2023; Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C No. 19804 of 2021, decided
on 13.8.2021; Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux,
1970 ALJ 903 SC; Jagat Narain & others v.
State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 54062 of
2013, decided on 9.2.2015 - referred to

List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952; U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 ; U.P. Consolidation
of Holding Act, 1953; Code of Civil Procedure,
1908

List of Keywords
Article 226 of Constitution of India; Proceedings
u/s 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Eviction from
land of Gaon Sabha; Abadi nature of land;
Unauthorized occupation; Damages imposed;
Banjar Category 5(3) land; Show cause notice in
RC Form 20 under Rule 67(2); Assistant
Collector / Tehsildar; Lawfully holding the land;
Section 9 of U.P. Z.A.L.R.Act, 1952; Public utility
land u/s 132; Section 67-A of Revenue Code,
2006; Preferential category u/s 64; Abadi site;
Settlement of land; Consolidation proceedings
under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
Publication u/s 52 of Act of 1953; CH Form 41
and CH Form 45; Non-denial under Order VIII
Rule 5 CPC; Lawful possession; Legal title;
Benefit u/s 9; Preferential allotment u/s 64;
Allotment of abadi sites u/s 63; Public purpose
land; Banjar land liable for agricultural use;
Kushinagar International Airport; Virtual Flight
Rule; Instrument Landing System (ILS) - Glide
Path; Eviction order to be complied with; No
interference required; Petitioners liable to be
evicted.
Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: (Writ C No. - 719 of
2022) Connected with other matters
Writ C No. - 721 of 2022, Writ C No. - 724 of
2022, Writ C No. - 727 of 2022, Writ C No. - 730
of 2022, Writ C No. - 732 of 2022, Writ C No. -
740 of 2022, Writ C No. - 802 of 2022.

From the Order dated 14.12.2021, passed by
District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar and Order dated
03.12.2020,
passed
by
Assistant
Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil Kasia, District Kushi
Nagar.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
M.N. Singh, Mahesh Narain Singh

Adv. for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. These bunch of writ petitions arise
out of proceedings initiated under Section
67
of
U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006
(hereinafter referred as the 'Code of 2006')
for evicting petitioners from the land of
Gaon Sabha. The order passed under
Section 67 (1) of the Code of 2006 was
subjected to appeal under Section 67 (5)
which confirmed the order of eviction
leading to filing of the present writ
petitions.

2. The issue raised in all the connected
matters are one and the same and related to
the same village and, as such, all the matter
have been tagged together and with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties
all the writ petitions are being heard
together and decided by a common
judgment/order.

3. Facts, in brief, of the leading writ
petition being Writ-C No. 719 of 2022, are
that dispute relates to old Khasra No. 137,
which
has
been
renumbered
in
consolidation proceedings as Khasra No.
1275 situated in Village Bhaluhi Madari
Patti, Tappa Mainpur, Pargana Sidhua
8 All. Mohan Lal Srivsatava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
Jobna, Tehsil Kasaya, District Kushinagar.
Petitioners claim the land to be of abadi
nature and in possession since the time of
their ancestors. After the enforcement of
U.P. Act No. 1 of 1952 (U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act 1950) the abadi site stood settled with
the petitioners. A show cause notice in RC
Form 20 under Rule 67 (2) of U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter
referred as the 'Rules of 2016') was issued
but no objections were filed nor petitioners
appeared before the court of Assistant
Collector/Tehsildar, consequently, an order
was passed for eviction on 3.12.2020 and
also imposing the damages amounting to
Rs. 3,28,500/- for unauthorized occupation
of land in question.

4. Petitioners challenged the said order
and filed Appeal No. 1273 of 2021 under
Section 67 (5) of the Code of 2006, which
was dismissed on 14.12.2021. Hence,
present writ petition. Similarly, in other
bunch of cases the eviction order was
passed against various petitioners which
was subjected in appeal, which was
dismissed. Dismissal of appeal led to filing
of the connected writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners
submits that the land in question stood
settled in favour of petitioners in terms of
Section 9 of the Act No. 1 of 1952 as abadi
was existing of the ancestors of petitioners.
According to him without dealing with the
issue of Section 9, the revenue authorities
have proceeded to pass the order of
eviction confirming the same in appeal. It
was further submitted that the land in
question is not a public utility land as
defined under Section 132 of the Act No. 1
of 1952 as well as Section 67 of the Code
of 2006 and, thus, the same can be settled
in favour of petitioner under Section 67-A
of the Code of 2006.

6. It was also contended that the RC
Form 19 & 20 was never served upon the
petitioners before the order of eviction was
passed and in garb of the fact that extension
of Kushinagar Airport has to be done the
State authorities are forcibly evicting the
petitioners to deprive them of their rights as
accrued under Section 9 of the Act No. 1 of
1952. Reliance has been placed upon the
decision
rendered
in
Manorey
@
Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue, AIR
2003 SC 4102, Rishipal Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2023 (160) RD 204,
Sharda
Industries
through
partner
Mayank Vs. The Additional District
Collector, District Unnao and others,
Writ-C No. 9500 of 2022 decided on
14.2.2023, Pushpa Pathak Vs. State of
U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 9433 of 2023
decided on 28.10.2023 and Writ-C No.
19804 of 2021, Babu Ram Vs. State of
U.P. and others, decided on 13.8.2021.

7. Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel
appearing for Gaon Sabha/respondent no.
4, submitted that the notices were served
upon the petitioners but they do not file any
objection nor they appeared before the
revenue authorities. The land in question
i.e. Gata No. 1275 (area 0.174 hectare) is
recorded under category - 5 (3) as Banjar
land liable for agricultural use in the
revenue
records.
According
to
him,
petitioners could not prima facie establish
through any document that they are in
lawful possession in respect of Gata No.
1275. According to him, the issue stand
settled by the decision of the Apex Court
rendered in case of Budhan Singh Vs.
Nabi Bux, 1970 ALJ 903 SC.

8. It is next contended that unless
petitioners establish that they were lawfully
holding the land they cannot be extended
the benefit of Section 9 of the Act No. 1 of
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1952. Learned counsel next contended that
to get the benefit of Section 67-A of the
Code of 2006 petitioners have to establish
that they come under the preferential
category provided in Section 64 of the
Code of 2006 in respect of the land referred
in Section 63. Petitioners being members of
general category and not living below the
poverty line and their ancestors having
house at another place in village they are
not covered under the preferential category
enumerated in Section 64, thus, the land
under Section 67-A cannot be settled.

9. He lastly contended that as the land
in question lies in close vicinity of the
airport area it would be treated as reserved
land for the aforesaid public purpose and
cannot be settled in favour of petitioners
under Section 67-A. Reliance has been
placed upon the decision of Division Bench
of this Court rendered in case of Jagat
Narain & others Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C No. 54062 of 2013,
decided on 9.2.2015.

10.
Sri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional Advocate General, appearing on
behalf of the State, submitted that claim of
petitioners that Khasra No. 1275 has been
formed from old Gata No. 137 is false and
incorrect. In fact, Gata No. 1275 measuring
0.174 hectare was carved out from old Gata
No. 2230/227 in consolidation operation
recorded it as Banjar in the year 1990 with
publication of notification under Section 52
of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953
(hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1953')
which can be ascertained from the extract
of CH Form 45 appended as annexure No.
5 to the supplementary counter affidavit.

11. According to him, the old Gata
No. 137 was renumbered and new Gata
Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 were carved out in
consolidation proceedings and they were
recorded as chak, bhumidhari land, chak
marg, nali etc. These gata numbers are not
at all related to the petitioners which can be
ascertained from the extract of CH Form
45. He then contended that benefit of
Section 67-A cannot be extended as
petitioners do not fall in preferential
category.

12. It was also argued that petitioners
never
participated
in
consolidation
proceedings to get their alleged right
establish nor the averments made in the
supplementary counter affidavit has been
controverted. He lastly contended that
Kushinagar
International
Airport
is
currently serving as VFR (Virtual Flight
Rule) Airport. For extension of airport
additional land including the land in
dispute has been proposed for extending
approximately 190 meter each on either
side of the runway central line for
facilitating upcoming ILS (Instrument
Landing System) - Glide Path. On account
of interim order operating the extension of
runway
to
facilitate
upcoming
ILS
(Instrument Landing System) - Glide Path
is hampered to meet prescribed safety and
operational standards.

13. I have heard respective counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record. Before adverting to decide the issue
in hand a glance of Section 9 of the Act No.
1 of
1952
is necessary
for
better
appreciation of the case, which is extracted
hereasunder;

"9. Private wells, trees in abadi
and buildings to be settled with the
existing owners or occupiers thereof. -
[All wells,] trees in abadi and all buildings
situate within the limits of an estate
belonging to or held by an intermediary or
8 All. Mohan Lal Srivsatava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
tenant or other person whether residing in
the village or not, shall continue to belong
to or be held by such intermediary tenant or
person, as the case may be, and the site of
the wells or the buildings within the area
appurtenant thereto shall be deemed to be
settled with him by the State Government
on such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed."

14. According to the said provision, all
wells, trees in abadi and all buildings
situate within the limits of an estate
belonging to or held by an intermediary or
tenant or other person whether residing in
the village or not, shall continue to belong
to or be held by such intermediary tenant or
person, as the case may be. The issue
regarding interpretation of Section 9 came
for consideration before the Apex Court in
case of Budhan Singh (Supra) wherein
the Apex Court interpreted Section 9 and
held that the word 'held' shall be read as
'lawfully held'. Relevant paragraph nos.
11, 12 and 13 are extracted hereasunder;

"11. It is true that according to
the dictionary meaning the word "held" can
mean either a lawful holding or even a
holding without any semblance of a
right such as holding by a trespasser.
But the real question is as to what is the
legislative intent? Did the legislature
intend to settle the concerned building
with a person who was lawfully holding
or with any person holding lawfully or
otherwise? Mr. Misra contended that
there is no justification for us to read
into the section the word "lawfully"
before the word "held". According to
him, if the legislature intended that the
holding should be a lawful one, it
would have said"lawfully held". He
wanted us to interpret the section as it
stands.

12. It is true that the legislature
could have used the word "lawfully held"
in place of the word "held" in Section 9 but
as mentioned earlier one of the dictionary
meanings given to the word "held" is,
"lawfully
held".
In
Webster's
New
Twentieth Century Dictionary (Second
Edition), it is stated that in legal parlance
the word "held" means to possess by "legal
title". In other words the word "held" is
technically understood to mean to possess
by legal title. Therefore by interpreting the
word "held" as "lawfully held", we are not
adding any word to the section. We are
merely spelling out the meaning of that
word. It may further be seen that the
section speaks of all buildings .... within the
limits of an Estate, belonging to or held by
an intermediary or tenant or other person"
.... The word "belonging" undoubtedly
refers to legal title. The words "held by an
intermediary" also refer to a possession by
legal title. The words "held by tenant" also
refer to holding by legal title. In the
sequence mentioned above it is proper to
construe the word "held" in Section 9 when
used in relation to the words "other person"
as meaning "lawfully held" by that person.
That interpretation flows from the context
in which the word "held" has been used.
We have earlier mentioned that the said
interpretation accords with justice.

13. The expression "held" has
been used in the Act in various other
sections-see Sections 2(1) (c), 13, 17, 18,
21, 144, 204, 240A, 298, 304, and 314 to
connote possession by legal title. Mr.
Misra, learned Counsel for the appellants
does not deny that the expression "held" in
those sections means held lawfully. But
according to him that is because of the
context in which the word is used. Mr.
Misra is right in saying so but he overlooks
the context in which that expression is used
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Section 9. We have already made
reference to that context. He failed to point
out to us any section in the Act, leaving
aside Section 9 for the time being where
the word "held" has been used as meaning
mere holding, lawful or otherwise. In K.K.
Handique v. The Member, Board of
Agricultural Income Tax, Assam(1) this
Court was called upon to consider the
meaning of the word "holds" in Sections 12
and 13 of the Assam Agricultural Income
Tax Act. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was )
speaking for the Court observed that the
expression "holds" includes a two-fold idea
of the actual possession of a thing and also
of being invested with a legal title though
some times it is used only to mean actual
possession. After reading Sections 12 and
13 together he observed that the word
"holds" in those sections means holding by
legal title. In Eramma v. Verrupanna &
Ors.(2), this Court considered the meaning
of the word (1) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1191. (2)
[1966] 2, S.C.R. "possessed" in Section 14
(1 ) of the Hindu Succession Act which laid
down that "any property possessed by a
female Hindu whether acquired before or
after the commencement of this Act shall
be held by her as full owner thereof and not
as a limited owner". It held that the
property possessed by a female widow, as
contemplated in the section, is clearly a
property to which she has acquired some
kind of title whether before or after the
commencement of the Act. It is true that in
arriving at that conclusion the Court took
into consideration the language of the
provision as a whole and also the
explanation to the section. The scheme of
the Act is to abolish all Estates and vest the
concerned property in the State but at the
same time certain rights were conferred on
persons in possession of lands or buildings.
It is reasonable to think that the persons
who were within the contemplation of the
Act are those who were in possession of
lands or buildings on the basis of some
legal title. Bearing in mind the purpose
with which the legislation was enacted, the
scheme of the Act and the language used in
Section 9, we are of opinion that the word
"held" in Section 9 means "lawfully held".
In other words we accept the correctness of
the view taken by Mukerji and Dwivedi, JJ.
For the reasons already mentioned we are
unable to agree with Desai, C.J. that the
fact that the appellants had demolished the
buildings put up by the respondents and put
up some other building in their place had
conferred any rights on them under Section
9."

15.
Thus,
petitioners,
who
are
claiming the benefit of Section 9, have to
demonstrate that they are lawfully holding
the land after the enforcement of the Act
No. 1 of 1952. No document was placed to
substantiate the argument advanced by
them in regard to Section 9.

16. Further, the State has come up
with specific plea that consolidation
proceedings took place in the aforesaid
village and publication of notification
under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 was
made in the year 1990 and the land in
question was recorded as Banjar in CH
Form No. 41 and 45. Moreover, the State
has demonstrated from the documents
appended as annexure Nos. 1 to 3, filed
alongwith supplementary counter affidavit
that Gata No. 1275 measuring 0.174
hectare was carved out from the old Gata
No. 2230/227 in consolidation proceedings
and not from Gata No. 137, as claimed by
the petitioners.

17.
Paragraph
no.
7
of
the
supplementary
counter
affidavit
specifically reflect that Gata Nos. 25, 26,
8 All. Mohan Lal Srivsatava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787
27 and 28 were carved out in consolidation
proceedings from the old Gata No. 137 and
were recorded as chak, bhumidhari land,
chak marg, nali etc. These gata numbers are
not at all related to petitioners, which can
be verified from CH Form 41 appended
with the said affidavit.

18. There is no specific denial in terms
of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC in respect of
paragraph nos. 5 to 10 of supplementary
counter affidavit that Gata No. 1275 was
carved out from the old Gata No. 2230/227
and Gata Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 were
carved out from Gata No. 137. The case of
petitioners falls flat in view of non denial
of the fact brought by the State through
their supplementary counter affidavit that
Gata No. 1275 was never carved out from
Gata No. 137, which was the case set-up by
the petitioners.

19. Once the petitioners themselves
are not sure of the land over which they are
claiming the benefit under Section 9 and in
consolidation proceedings new Gata Nos.
25, 26, 27 and 28 have been carved out
from Gata No. 137 and have been recorded
as chak, bhumidhari land, chak marg, nali
etc. not belonging to the petitioners. Their
claim under Section 9 cannot be entertained
as the chain remain uncompleted and no
case for settling the abadi site in their
favour arise under Section 9 of the Act No.
1 of 1952.

20. The Apex Court in Budhan Singh
(Supra) had clearly held that to claim
benefit under Section 9 the party has to
demonstrate that it is lawfully holding the
land over which it is claiming, mere
assertion that land settled in terms of
Section 9 would not suffice but has to be
demonstrated
from
some
cogent
evidence.

21. Now coming to the second limb of
the argument raised by petitioners for
extending the benefit under Section 67-A
of the Code of 2006. A glance of Sections
63 and 64 is necessary before arriving at
conclusion for extending the benefit of
Section 67-A is concerned. Relevant
Sections 63, 64 and 67-A of the Code of
2006 is extracted hereasunder;

"63.
Land
which
may
be
allotted for abadi sites.- (1) The SubDivisional Officer may of his own motion
or on the resolution of the Bhumi
Prabandhak Samiti earmark the following
classes of land for the provision of abadi
sites for allotment to persons specified in
section 64:-

(a) all lands entrusted or deemed
to be entrusted to a Gram Panchayat under
clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 59;

(b)
all
lands
coming
into
possession of Gram Panchayat under any
other provisions of this Code.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provision of this
Code or in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti may,
with the previous approval of the SubDivisional Officer, allot the following
classes of land for the purposes of building
houses:-

(a) any vacant land referred to in
sub-section (1);

(b) any land earmarked for abadi
sites under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953;

(c) any land acquired under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Act No.1 of 1894) and The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of
2013).

64. Allotment of abadi sites.- (1)
The following order of preference shall be
observed in making allotment of land
referred to in section 63:-

(a) an agricultural labourer or a
village artisan residing in the Gram Sabha
and belonging to a scheduled caste or
scheduled tribes or other backward classes
or a person of general category living
below poverty line as determined by the
State Government;

(b) any other agricultural labourer
or a village artisan residing in the Gram
Sabha;

(c) any other person residing in
the Gram Sabha and belonging to a
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or
other Backward Classes or a person of
general category living below poverty
line
as
determined
by
the
State
Government:

Provided that preference will be
given to widow and physically handicapped
person within same category.

Explanation.- For the purposes
of this sub-section-

(1) "other backward class" means
the backward classes of citizens specified
in Schedule-I of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
Other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act
No.4 of 1994);

(2) "person of general category
living below poverty line" means such
persons as may be determined from time to
time by the State Government.

(2) In making an allotment under
this section, preference shall be given to a
person who either holds no house or has
insufficient accommodation considering the
requirements of his family.

(3) Every land allotted under this
section shall be held by the allottee on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided that if the allottee is a
married man and his wife is alive, she shall
be co-allottee of equal share in the land so
allotted.

67-A Certain house sites to be
settled with existing owners thereof.- (1)
If any person referred to in sub-section (1)
of section 64 has built a house on any land
referred to in section 63 of this Code, not
being land reserved for any public purpose,
and such house exits on the November 29,
2012, the site of such house shall be held
by the owner of the house on such terms
and conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any person referred to
in sub-section (1) of section 64, has built a
house on any land held by a tenure holder
(not being a government lessee) and such
house exits on November 29, 2000, the site
of such house, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Code, be deemed to be
settled with the owner of such house by the
tenure holder on such terms and conditions
as may be prescribed.

Explanation. - For the purpose of
sub-section (2), a house existing on
November 29, 2000, on any land held by a
8 All. Mohan Lal Srivsatava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
tenure holder, shall, unless the contrary is
proved, be presumed to have been built by
the occupant thereof and where the
occupants are members of one family by
the head of that family."

22. From the reading of Section 63 it
is clear that the revenue authorities either
on their own motion or on the resolution of
the Land Management Committee earmark
the
land
mentioned
therein
for
the
provision of abadi sites for allotment to
persons specified in section 64, meaning
thereby that abadi sites can be allotted only
to the persons specified in Section 64.
Section 64 lays down the order of
preference in making the allotment of the
land referred in Section 63. The said
provision
provides
for
preferential
allotment of a land to an agricultural
labourer or village artisan residing in
village and belonging to scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe or backward class or a
person of general category living below the
poverty
line.
It
also
provides
that
preference will be given to a widow and
physically handicapped person within the
same category.

23. Section 67-A clearly speaks that if
any person referred to in Sub-section (1) of
Section 64 has built a house on any land
referred to in Section 63, not reserved for
public purpose and the house exist on
November 29, 2012 it may be settled with
the person on the terms and conditions as
may be prescribed, meaning thereby that
benefit under Section 67-A can only be
extended taking into consideration Sections
63 and 64 of the Code of 2006.

24. Section 64 is of great relevance as
it provides the order of preference for
allotment of land for abadi sites referred in
Section 63. Petitioners before this Court
clearly do not fall within the category
enumerated in Section 64 nor they have
come up with a case that they are entitled
for the benefit under Section 64 to be read
with Section 67-A.

25. The entire claim of petitioners
hinges basically on two arguments i.e.
either the land in question be settled in
terms of Section 9 of the Act No. 1 of 1952
or in the alternative they should be
extended the benefit of Section 67-A and
the land in question be settled in their
favour.

26. On both these issues, petitioners
have miserably failed to substantiate their
claim as consolidation proceedings already
stood concluded in the village in the year
1990 and notification under Section 52 of
the Act of 1953 was published. Gata No.
137
over
which
they
are
claiming
possession has been carved out as Gata
Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 recording it to be
chak, bhumidhari land, chak marg and nali
and revenue records demonstrate that
petitioners have no concern with the said
gata numbers. Their claim under Section 9
is
belied
from
the
records
of
the
consolidation
proceedings
which
had
remained unchallenged for the last 35 years
and no effort was made by petitioners to
challenge the entries standing in the
revenue records against them.

27. It was only when the eviction
proceedings were initiated against them and
notices having been served upon them that
they had filed an appeal and raised the plea
of Section 9. Petitioners' finding that they
were standing on a sticky wicket took an
alternative plea that the abadi site be settled
with them in terms of Section 67-A. It has
been clearly demonstrated that they do not
fall in the preferential category of Section
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
64 and, thus, cannot be allotted the land in
question.

28. It is clear from the facts of the case
and pleading of the parties that the
international airport is coming up in the
District Kushinagar for which additional
land is needed for ILS (Instrument Landing
System) - Glide Path for which Gaon
Sabha is transferring the land to the
authorities for extension of the airport and
the runway central line.

29.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I find that no
interference is required with the orders
impugned. Petitioners are liable to be
evicted from the land of Gaon Sabha,
which has been recorded as Banjar
Category 5 (3) land since the consolidation
proceedings of the year 1990.

30. All the writ petitions fail and are
hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands discharged. Revenue authorities to
comply the eviction order within a period
of three weeks.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 790
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 1969 of 2025

M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Sanjai Singh

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, after having entered
into One Time Settlement Agreement dated
10.05.2023
under
Simplified
One
Time
Settlement Scheme 2022-23, petitioners, who
failed to make payment of settled amount within
stipulated period of 180 days as prescribed in
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of Scheme, could lawfully
seek enforcement or continuation of said OTS
through writ petition under Article 226, and
whether Bank's cancellation of OTS and
subsequent sale of mortgaged property u/s
13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was liable to be
interfered with by High Court on grounds of
arbitrariness or violation of any vested right of
petitioners.

Headnotes
Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 - ss. 13(2),
13(4)
-
Petitioners
and
another,
a
borrower company and its guarantor,
availed
a
cash
credit
limit
of
₹1,00,00,000/-, an overdraft facility of
₹10,00,000/-,
and
a
term
loan
of
₹2,80,00,000/- from respondent Bank in
2017, however, due to financial distress,
their loan accounts were declared nonperforming assets (NPAs) on 10.05.2021 -
Thereafter, petitioners applied for and
were granted a One Time Settlement
(OTS) under Bank's Simplified One Time
Settlement Scheme (SOTS) 2022-23 vide
letter
dated
10.05.2023,
stipulating
repayment within 180 day - Despite
repeated reminders, petitioners failed to
deposit settled amount within prescribed
period, leading Bank to cancel OTS by
orders dated 25.04.2024, 10.05.2024, and
22.05.2024,
and
subsequently
issue
auction notices u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI
Act, 2002 - One of mortgaged properties
was
sold
on
27.01.2025,
and
sale
certificate was issued on 02.02.2025 in
favour of auction purchaser - Aggrieved
thereby, petitioners filed instant petiton,
contending that OTS remained valid and
Bank acted arbitrarily in cancelling same