# Raja Ram v. Additional Commissioner, Varanasi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1089
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-13
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-ram-v-additional-commissioner-varanasi-ors-43970
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging:
Order dated 04.04.2013 passed in proceedings under Section 28, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901,
directing correction in the map.
Order dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.
Statutory Provisions Involved
Section 28, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
Sections 11A and 27, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act

Issues:
Whether a person who was not a party to proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can
challenge the order passed therein?
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Whether correction in the final consolidation map after closure of consolidation proceedings is barred by
Section 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act?
Whether the report of the draftsman could be relied upon without formal examination?

Headnotes:
The petitioner admittedly was not a party to the proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act and had not sought impleadment therein.
Being a stranger to the proceedings, his objection as well as revision were not maintainable.
Section 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars objections that could be taken under Section 9 at a
later stage of consolidation, but does not apply to correction of map proceedings.
Under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, once consolidation operations conclude,
the final consolidation map is to be corrected and maintained in accordance with the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Therefore, proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of map are legally
permissible even after consolidation operations have closed.
The challenge regarding non-examination of the draftsman was untenable in view of petitioner's lack of locus
standi.

Result:
Writ Petition Dismissed.

## Text

7 All. Raja Ram Vs Additional Commissioner, Varanasi & Ors.
1089
and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged
and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given, a transaction becomes void from the very
beginning. There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is
avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases, where legal effect of a
document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but
would be obviously voidable. Similar view has been taken in Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip,
(2014) 2 SCC 465, in which it has been held that it is well settled that such a void order can create
neither legal rights nor obligations. Therefore, the appellant cannot be denied his right to recover
possession of the property in dispute on the ground that he did not choose to challenge such a void
order. The cases relied by the counsel for the petitioner for a contrary proposition have no
application as in this case, as initial entry in favour of the petitioner was not a genuine entry.
Statute itself provides for suit to establish right and title for which no limitation has been provided.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ C No.- 29707 Of 2016

Raja Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Varanasi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Yogendra Kumar, Om Narayan Dwivedi (appeared in Court)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Amit Kumar Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Yadav (for Gaon Sabha, Respondent No. 4)

Procedure:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging:
Order dated 04.04.2013 passed in proceedings under Section 28, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901,
directing correction in the map.
Order dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.
Statutory Provisions Involved
Section 28, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
Sections 11A and 27, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act

Issues:
Whether a person who was not a party to proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act can
challenge the order passed therein?
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Whether correction in the final consolidation map after closure of consolidation proceedings is barred by
Section 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act?
Whether the report of the draftsman could be relied upon without formal examination?

Headnotes:
The petitioner admittedly was not a party to the proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act and had not sought impleadment therein.
Being a stranger to the proceedings, his objection as well as revision were not maintainable.
Section 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars objections that could be taken under Section 9 at a
later stage of consolidation, but does not apply to correction of map proceedings.
Under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, once consolidation operations conclude,
the final consolidation map is to be corrected and maintained in accordance with the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Therefore, proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of map are legally
permissible even after consolidation operations have closed.
The challenge regarding non-examination of the draftsman was untenable in view of petitioner's lack of locus
standi.

Result:
Writ Petition Dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Om Narayan Dwivedi has put in
appearance on behalf of the petitioner in Court today. The same is taken on record. I have heard
him and Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav for the Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 4 and Shri Amit Kumar
Tiwari for the respondent no. 5.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act. These proceedings were initiated by the respondents and an order came to be passed on
04.04.2013 directing correction in the map.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed an objection to
the report that had been submitted by the droughts man.

4. On a pointed query, he admits that he was not a party to the proceedings nor had sought
impleadment therein. The contention is that the author of the report was droughts man never
examined to prove the report and, therefore, this report could not be made basis of the order
impugned.

5. After the correction of map was ordered, the petitioner appears to have been filed a
revision, which has also been dismissed.

6. In my considered opinion, in view of the admitted factual position that the petitioner was
not a party to the proceedings under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act nor sought his
7 All. Kameshwar Thakur Vs Regional Higher Education Officer (R.H.E.O.) & Ors
1091
impleadment therein, he was a total stranger thereto. The objection as also the revision filed by
him, were for the same reason clearly not maintainable.

7. It has additionally been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the
correction has been ordered in the final consolidation map, the proceedings initiated by the
respondent were barred by Section 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This correction
could have been done only during consolidation operations and not thereafter.

8. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally devoid of substance.

9. A bare reading of Section 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that
an objection, which can be filed at the stage of Section 9, cannot be raised at any subsequent stage
of consolidation operations. An objection for the correction of map is to be made in accordance
with the provision of Section 27 of the Act. The bar contained in Section 11A, therefore, has
absolutely no application in matters pertaining to corrections of map.

10. Moreover, sub-section 3 of the aforesaid Section 27 of the Act provides that once the
final consolidation map has been prepared and the consolidation operations have come to a close,
this map is to be corrected and is maintained in accordance with the provision contained in the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901.

11. It is therefore, clear that even the final consolidation map is subject to the provsions of
Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which had been invoked in the instant case by the
respondents.

12. Since the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of substance and
additionally since the petitioner is unconcerned with the proceedings not being a party thereto, this
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No.- 30708 Of 1993

Kameshwar Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional Higher Education Officer (R.H.E.O.) & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Sri C. Prakash, Sri C. Prashad, Sri K. Kant, Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Y. Agrawal