# Nandlal & Ors v. Chakbandi Adhikari Akbarpur Ambedkar Nagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-22
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 4933 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nandlal-ors-v-chakbandi-adhikari-akbarpur-ambedkar-nagar-ors-46745
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holding Act,
1953 - Ss. 9A (2), 10(1) 11C and 52 -
Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 -
Rule 109A - Notification u/s 52 issued -
Application
under
Rule
109A
(1)
-
Maintainability - Implementation of the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer
- Jurisdiction of Consolidation authority -
Held, the question is no longer res integra
that even after Section 52 Notification is
issued, the Consolidation Authorities, if
they are present in the District, having
jurisdiction to implement the order passed
by the Consolidation Officer or by any
other Consolidation Authority for which
the consolidation operations would be
deemed to be pending - Necessary
Direction issued. (Para 20, 21 and 22)
Writ Petition disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fraudulent entry dated 10.08.1987 in favour
of the father of the petitioners.

26. This petition stands dismissed.

27. No order as to Costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Consolidation No. 4933 of 2021

Nandlal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chakbandi Adhikari Akbarpur Ambedkar
Nagar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vijai
Bahadur
Verma,
Pramod
Kr.
Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holding Act,
1953 - Ss. 9A (2), 10(1) 11C and 52 -
Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 -
Rule 109A - Notification u/s 52 issued -
Application
under
Rule
109A
(1)
-
Maintainability - Implementation of the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer
- Jurisdiction of Consolidation authority -
Held, the question is no longer res integra
that even after Section 52 Notification is
issued, the Consolidation Authorities, if
they are present in the District, having
jurisdiction to implement the order passed
by the Consolidation Officer or by any
other Consolidation Authority for which
the consolidation operations would be
deemed to be pending - Necessary
Direction issued. (Para 20, 21 and 22)
Writ Petition disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Ramraj Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
2002 (93) RD 884
2. Mukhtar Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh, 1993 RD 457
3. Raja Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation
& ors., 1982 RD 387
4. Brij Bir Singh Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar & ors., 1987 RD
66
5. Writ Petition No.3438 (Consolidation) of
1981, Mohd. Naimuddin & ors. Vs Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Barabanki, decided on
08.01.2020
6. Raghunath Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
1960 RD 337
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

(Oral)

1. Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Upendra Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the State-respondents and Shri Mohan
Singh, appearing for the Gaon Sabha and
perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 23.01.2021
passed by the Consolidation Officer,
Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, under
Rule 109 A (1) of the Rules framed under
the
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
hereinafter referred to as Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that
the old Gata No.813 Min. admeasuring 2
bigha and 15 Biswansi and old Gata no.875
Min. admeasuring 2 bigha i.e. a total of two
plots of land measuring 4 bighas and 15
Biswansi situated in Village Sudhari,
Mauja
Afjalpur,
Pargana
and
Tehsil
Akbarpur, District Faizabad, later on,
2 All. Nandlal & Ors. Vs. Chakbandi Adhikari Akbarpur Ambedkar Nagar & Ors.
341
District
Ambedkar
Nagar,
was
the
Zamindari
land
of
the
Intermediary
Musamaat Shakeena Bibi widow of Syed
Rafiq Hussain resident of Lorpur. The said
land was given on patta to the predecessor
in interest of the petitioner on 01.07.1947.
A copy of the patta/lease deed for
agricultural purpose entered into between
Power of Attorney holder of Intermediary
and the father of the petitioners Bhola Ahir
has been filed as Annexure-1 to the
petition.

4. It has been submitted that even
after Zamindari was abolished in 1952 the
predecessor in interest of the petitioners
continued to be in possession of the land in
question and continued also to cultivate the
same. It was recorded in the name of the
father of the petitioners in 1363 to 1365
Fasli and again in 1366 to 1368 Fasli.
When consolidation operation, began in the
village, the land in question was recorded
in CH Form-2A as Matruk and Banjar to
some extent and also in the names of Badal
and others and Beni Madhav, Daya Ram,
Ram Sahay and others. The father of the
petitioners Bhola Ahir filed a petition under
Section 9A (2) saying that due to error the
land in question had been recorded as
Matruk and Banjar. The case was registered
as Case No.585/6424 namely Bhola Vs.
State and others. After the petitioners father
produced
evidence
both
oral
and
documentary, the Consolidation Officer,
Akbarpur, passed an order on 08.06.1972
that name of the father of the petitioners be
recorded in the Revenue Records instead of
the land in question being recorded as
Banjar and Matruk and the arrears of land
revenue be also deposited by the tenure
holder.

5. The order dated 08.06.1972,
however, was not endorsed either in CH
Form-11 or any other CH Form published
thereafter, although there is a specific duty
cast upon the Consolidation Authorities
under Paragraph 249 to 254 of the
Consolidation Manual for every order
passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer under 9A (1) or the Consolidation
Officer under 9A (2) to be recorded in the
Revenue Records.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that under Section 10 (1) of the
Act and Rule 28 it is the duty of the
Consolidation Authorities to get all orders
implemented by making a mention thereof
in CH-11. Since, no mention was made in
CH-11 of the order dated 08.06.1972, or in
CH-41 to CH-45, Old Gata No.875/12 and
813/9 were converted into new numbers
520 Ka and recorded as Navin parti, and
429 Ka and recorded as Banjar in the
Revenue Records.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that
because certain portion of Old Gata
No.875/12 and 813/9 was recorded as
Banjar land and old parti it remained
outside the consolidation operation and no
chak was allotted thereon, therefore, the
father of the petitioners could not come to
know of the land being recorded as Navin
parti and Banjar land in favour of the Gaon
Sabha. It is only when the Lekhpal issued
notice to the petitioners for removal of
encroachment on Gaon Sabha land that the
petitioners came to know about the entry of
the order dated 08.06.1972 not being made
in the Revenue Records and therefore,
applied under Rule 109 A (1) of the Rules.
The Consolidation Officer submitted a
report on 19.02.2019 to the Assistant
Consolidation Officer saying that the land
in question was recorded as Navin parti and
Banjar in CH Form-41 and CH Form-45.
The
matter
was
referred
to
the
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation Officer who by his order
dated 23.01.2021 impugned in this petition
has
rejected
the
application
of
the
petitioners as being not maintainable and
also observing that Section 52 Notification
for the Unit concerned was issued on
08.04.1982 and the Consolidation Officer's
order being of 08.06.1972 of which
Amaldaramad was being sought he had no
jurisdiction to consider the application.

8. It has also been submitted by Shri
Vijay Bahadur Verma, that an order passed
under Rule 109 A (1) is not appealable
order and therefore, this Court has been
approached by the petitioners instead of
approaching
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

9. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of
judgment rendered in the case of Ramraj Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation reported
in 2002 (93) RD 884, Paragraph 12 that even
after de-notification of the village under
Section 52 the Consolidation Authorities
could entertain an application under Rule
109A more particularly when fraud and
forgery was being alleged by one of the
parties, not only upon the parties to the
dispute but also upon the Court. The Court
had observed that the scope of Rule 109 is
quite wide and the de-notification under
Section 52 of the Act is of no consequence.
The Consolidation Authorities, if they are
present in the district, shall give effect to
orders
passed
by
the
Competent
Consolidation Courts, and for that purpose
consolidation operations shall be deemed not
to have closed as provided under Sub Section
(2) of Section 52 of the Act.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has also placed reliance upon a
Division Bench /Larger Bench decision of
this Court in Mukhtar Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh,
reported in 1993 RD 457 wherein learned
Single Judge having found divergence of
opinions between two judgments rendered
by two learned Single Judges in the case of
Raja Ram Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and Others reported in
1982 RD 387 and Brij Bir Singh Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ambedkar Nagar and others reported in
1987 RD 66 had referred the question as
follows:-

"Whether
after
Gazette
Notification under Section 52 of the Act, an
application under Rule 109 A (1) of the
Rules was maintainable or not?

11. The Court had observed on the
basis of language of Section 52 (2) and on
the basis of Rules framed thereunder that
the duty for revising the Revenue Records
is upon the Consolidation Authorities and it
is for the Consolidation Authorities to
implement the order which are passed
under the Act. The scheme of the Act is not
like the scheme which has been provided
under the Code of Civil Procedure in the
sense that after obtaining the judgment and
decree in his favour, a party has to apply
for Execution within a certain period of
limitation prescribed under the Rules for
implementation of the Decree. Here in the
CH Act, the duty is enjoined upon the
Consolidation Authorities themselves to
implement orders which have been passed
under the Act and no duty is cast on the
person in whose favour the decision has
been given to make an application to the
Authorities, for implementation of the
order within any prescribed period of
limitation. The Court held that the
Consolidation Authorities were bound to
2 All. Nandlal & Ors. Vs. Chakbandi Adhikari Akbarpur Ambedkar Nagar & Ors.
343
implement the directions contained in the
final order passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, and even though a
Notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act
had taken place the proceedings would
necessarily be deemed to be pending for the
said purpose.

12. It has been submitted on the basis of
the aforesaid two judgments by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that even if the
order was passed in 1972 and Section 52
Notification had been issued thereafter in
1982, the proceedings would be deemed to be
pending and therefore the application under
Rule 109 A (1) was maintainable and the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer,
Akbarpur, is erroneous and ought to be set
aside by this Court.

13. Shri Upendra Singh, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of U.P. has brought to the notice of the
Court that fact that the petitioners themselves
admit that the patta in question was granted
by the intermediary in 1948 and such
patta/lease of land become ineffective in view
of Section 8 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
wherein it has been provided that any
contract for grazing or gathering of produce
from land, or collection of forest produce or
fishes from any forest or fisheries entered into
after 8 day of August, 1946 between the
intermediary and any other person in respect
of any private fisheries or land shall become
void with effect from the date of vesting.

14. It has been submitted that as soon as
the Zamindari Abolition Act came into force
the patta in question became ineffective and
the land vested in the Gram Sabha and
therefore, was recorded as Matruk and
Banjar, and Old Parti in the Revenue
Records.

15. It has been submitted by Shri
Upendra Singh, that it is the case of the
petitioners themselves that even before
consolidation operation started om the village
as is evident from CH Form 2A, the land in
question was recorded as Matruk and Banjar
and Old Parti and the petitioners father had
initiated the proceedings under the 9A (2)
claiming "Sirdari" over the land in question
on the ground that patta had been given by
the intermediary to him before Zamindari
Abolition Act.

16. It has been further submitted by
Shri Upendra Singh that the father of the
petitioners could only show some entries in
the Revenue Records from 1363 to 1368
Fasli. In his name but even in those entries
that were in his name there were other cotenure holders names also recorded, and a
portion of the land in question continued to
be recorded as Old Parti and Banjar land
belonging to Gaon Sabha.

17. It has been submitted by Shri
Upendra Singh that even if the petitioners'
case is accepted that it was the duty of the
Consolidation Authorities under Paragraph
2049-2050 of the Consolidation Manual to
get the orders passed by the Consolidation
Authorities recorded in the Revenue
records and at each stage the entries were
to be checked and rechecked, then it is
highly improbable that the Consolidation
Lekhpal,
the
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer, the Consolidation Officer all failed
to notice the order passed allegedly on
08.06.1972 in favour of the father of the
petitioners. It has also been submitted that
this Court has held in several cases that
such an old entry like that of the year 1972
if it is being sought to be implemented
under Rule 109 after several decades, it
becomes suspect.
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. It has further been argued that the
entries in question on the land in dispute
were initially of Banjar, and old parti in
favour of Gaon Sabha. Even after the order
dated 08.06.1972 they continued to be
recorded as Banjar and Matruk and a New
Parti in favour of the Gaon Sabha. Such old
entries can be corrected only under
Sections 38/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act by making an appropriate application
in this regard to the Collector who would
get all records examined for checking the
veracity of the claim made by the
petitioners. The Collector would have
records of earlier days and the records of
later dates with him and the order
impugned has been passed taking into
account the fact that the consolidation
operations were closed in 1982 in the
village concerned and this Court should not
interfere in writ jurisdiction in such an
order. It has been submitted that the
petitioners have
statutory remedy of
approaching the Collector for correction of
Revenue Records under the Land Revenue
Act.

19. Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma, in
rejoinder has submitted that the arguments
regarding Section 8 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act would not be available to the State
respondents as in the case of the petitioners
the predecessor in interest had been given
the land for cultivation by the intermediary
and this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench
decision in Mohd. Naimuddin and Others
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Barabanki, in Writ Petition No.3438
(Consolidation)
of
1981
decided
on
08.01.2020 has held that Section 8 is not
attracted in lease of land where the purpose
of the lease is to use the land for the
purpose of agriculture. A lease of land for
the purpose of cultivation which confers on
the lessee not merely a right in the land but
also the right to exclusive possession of the
land and to turn it to cultivation, is not a
transaction covered by Section 8 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. This Court had
placed reliance upon the judgment a
Division Bench judgment in the case of
Raghunath Singh and Another Vs. State
of U.P. and Another reported in 1960 RD
337.

20. This Court having considered the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for
the parties as also gone through the order
dated 23.01.2021. It finds therefrom that
the Consolidation Officer had expressed his
inability to entertain the application under
Rule 109 A (1) only because Section 52
Notification
had
been
published
on
08.04.1982 and the order sought to be
implemented
was
quite
old
i.e.
of
08.06.1972. The maintainability of such
application under Rule 109 A (1) being in
question the Consolidation Officer refused
to exercise his jurisdiction to consider the
merits of the case as set up by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.

21. In view of the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Mukhtar
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Azamgarh, reported in 1993 RD 457, the
question is no longer res integra that even
after Section 52 Notification is issued, the
Consolidation Authorities, if they are
present in the District, having jurisdiction
to implement the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer or by any other
Consolidation Authority for which the
consolidation operations would be deemed
to be pending. The order impugned is set
aside only on this ground alone.

22. However, this petition is finally
disposed of with a direction to the
Consolidation Officer to consider his
2 All. Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. Vs. Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
345
responsibility under Section 11 C of the
Act also, when the orders sought to be
implemented has been passed allegedly on
08.06.1972 i.e. nearly fifty years ago. He
will summon all records regarding to the
entry of Banjar, Old Parti and New Parti in
favour of the Gaon Sabha, and after
considering the same as also after hearing
the counsel for the Gaon Sabha he should
pass
appropriate
orders
strictly
in
accordance with law.
----------
(2021)02ILR A345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 7498 of 1989

Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
H S Sahai, Priti Saxena, Uma Shankar Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S P Shukla, Anand Kumar Shukla, Avinash
Chandra Pandey, R P Shukla, Rahul Roshan
Dubey, Ravi Kishore Joshi, Vivek Kumar
Tiwari

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holding Act,
1953 - Sections 9 and 11(1) - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Reform Act, 1950
- Sections 8 and 20 - Khasra and
Khatauni of 1356 Fasli - Entry of the name
- Entitlement of possession - Names of
the petitioners were recorded in 1356
Fasli and 1359 Fasli as well as in the basic
year entry of 1386 Fasli - Said entries
could not have been unsettled without any
substantial evidence - Section 20 of UP
ZA&LR Act secure the possession of the
person, whom name is recorded as an
occupant of any land, other than grove
land...., in Khasra or Khatauni of 1356
Fasli - Held, in case a lease of land was
issued for agricultural purpose and not
covered by Section 8 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
and the name was recorded as occupant
of the land in the Khasra or Khatauni of
1356-Fasli, the entry shall be deemed to
be correct and final and confers all the
rights, if not challenged. (Para 16, 17 and
18)
Writ Petition partly allowed .(E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Ram Avadh Vs Ram Das, (2008) 8 SCC 58,
2. Mohd. Naimuddin & ors. versus Deputy
Director of Consolidation Barabanki, 2020(147)
RD 90.
3. Raghunath Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
1961 RD 337
4. Mohd. Naimuddin & ors. versus Deputy
Director of Consolidation Barabanki, 2020(147)
RD 90
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Chandra
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 13.07.1982
passed in Case No.3563 by the Consolidation
Officer and the order dated 26.07.1989
passed in Revision No.1402/942 by the Joint
Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, by
means of which the order passed by the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
Musafirkhana, District-Sultanpur in Appeal
No.234 has been set aside and the order
passed by the Consolidation Officer has been
upheld.

3. The brief facts of the case, for
adjudication of the present writ petition, are