# Rama Kant v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 445
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-17
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 338 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-kant-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-anr-53134
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- "Usar" land - No right could be provided
over
the
land
recorded
as
"Usar".
Consolidation Authorities can direct the
name of Gaon Sabha or the State
Government to be recorded when it is
found that there is no valid title holder
and that under the law the land had
vested in the Government and then Gaon
Sabha even though Government or Gaon
Sabha had not filed an objection. (Para
10, 12)

B. U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Remand Order - In the instant
case D.D.C. in the order impugned
observed that the land in issue was
initially
recorded
as
'Usar'
in
the
revenue record and that the interest of
Gaon Sabha/State was not taken care of
while deciding the dispute between the
private
opposite
parties.
D.D.C.
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
Consolidation Officer, for deciding the
case afresh after providing opportunity
of hearing to the parties to the litigation
to decide the certain issues on merits.
Court did not interfered in the impugned
order of remand simplicitor for reason
that the C.O., after taking evidence,
would decide the case. (Para 13)

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

4 All. Rama Kant Vs. Dy. Directore of Consolidation& Anr.
445
 (2) The provisions of Section 117
of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act
No.1 of 1951), shall mutatis mutandis apply
to such land] [ vested in the Gaon Sabha]
as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha
by virtue of a declaration made by the State
Government under sub-section (1) of that
section, and as if the declaration were
made subject to the conditions respecting
utilisation specified in sub-section (1) of
this Section]

 (3) [* * *]"

9. Upon due consideration of the
aforesaid statutory provision, this Court
finds that no right could be provided to the
petitioner over the land recorded as "Usar",
which was provided to the petitioner for the
purposes of plantation. Accordingly, this
Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the
order dated 17.10.2024, passed by O.P. No.
1
in
Revision
No.83/2024,
case
no.0052/2018 (Kallu versus Jodharam and
others). The writ petition is hereby
dismissed.

10. Cost made easy.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 445
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ- B No. 338 of 2025

Rama Kant ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation & Anr.
 ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravindra Kumar Singh Raj, Amita Shukla,
Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- "Usar" land - No right could be provided
over
the
land
recorded
as
"Usar".
Consolidation Authorities can direct the
name of Gaon Sabha or the State
Government to be recorded when it is
found that there is no valid title holder
and that under the law the land had
vested in the Government and then Gaon
Sabha even though Government or Gaon
Sabha had not filed an objection. (Para
10, 12)

B. U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - Remand Order - In the instant
case D.D.C. in the order impugned
observed that the land in issue was
initially
recorded
as
'Usar'
in
the
revenue record and that the interest of
Gaon Sabha/State was not taken care of
while deciding the dispute between the
private
opposite
parties.
D.D.C.
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
Consolidation Officer, for deciding the
case afresh after providing opportunity
of hearing to the parties to the litigation
to decide the certain issues on merits.
Court did not interfered in the impugned
order of remand simplicitor for reason
that the C.O., after taking evidence,
would decide the case. (Para 13)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,
J.)

1. Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the State/opposite party No.1 and
perused the record.
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Issuance of notice to opposite party
No.2 is hereby dispensed

3. By means of the present petition,
petitioner has sought the following main
relief:-

"Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 6.3.2025 passed
Deputy by Director Consolidation Lucknow
in revision No. 69 of 2025 Ram Bux vs
Rama Kant under section 48 (1) of
U.P.C.H.Act in the interest of justice.
Contained as annexure no 1 to this writ
petition.

4. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
06.03.2025, passed in Revision No.69 of
2025 (Ram Bux Vs. Rama Kant) under
Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953, whereby
the opposite party No.1/Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Lucknow (in short 'D.D.C.'),
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar,
Lucknow (in short "C.O.") for deciding the
case afresh after providing opportunity of
hearing to the parties to the litigation to
decide the certain issues on merits. The
relevant portion of the order impugned
dated 06.03.2025, passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in
short "D.D.C.") is extracted herein under :-

"esjs }kjk mHk;i{kksa }kjk IkzLrqr dh x;h
cgl dks ns[kk x;k ,oa voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa
miyC/k lk{;ksa dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA fuxjkuhdrkZ
}kjk vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk la[;k&67 ds xkVk la[;k 83]
164] 167] 183] 209] 253] 383 esa lg[kkrsnkjh dh ekax
dh x;h gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dk dFku gS fd fookfnr
vkjkth iSr`d gS tcfd izfri{kh jkecD'k iq= dq'kky
dk dguk gS fd fookfnr vkjkth iSr`d ugha gSA mDr
vkjkth iV~Vs ls izkIr gqbZ FkhA ;g iV~Vk mlds firk
dks feyk Fkk vkSj firk ds ejus ds ckn jkecD'k iq=
dq'kky ds uke ;g vkjkth ntZ gqbZA foi{kh }kjk ewy
iV~Vk fnukad 25-01-1955 dk crk;k x;k gS vkSj
[krkSuh lu~ 1369&1371 Qlyh rFkk 1382&1384
Qlyh dh udy izLrqr dh x;h gSA foi{kh dk ;g Hkh
dguk gS fd izFke pdz pdcUnh esa fookfnr vkjkth
dq'kky iq= xksiky ds uke vafdr FkhA ml le;
fuxjkuhdrkZ jkecD'k ds firk uUgs thfor Fks muds
}kjk dksbZ vkifRr ugha dh x;hA nwljh pdcUnh esa
buds }kjk ;g vkifRr izLrqr dh x;h gS tks mRrj
izns'k tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e 1953 ds /kkjk&111⁄4,1⁄2 ls
ckf/kr gS blh fcUnq ij pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ,oa vihyh;
U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vkifRr vkSj vihy
fujLRk dh nh x;h gSA i=koyh esa fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk
tks ikfjokfjd fltjk fn;k x;k gS mlesa xksiky ds
yM+ds cnyw] dq'kky vkSj uUgs FksA dq'kky ds yM+ds
izfri{kh jekdkUr gSA vkSj uUgs ds yM+ds jkecD'k gSA
ikfjokfjd fltjk nksuksa i{kksa dks Lohdkj gSA fcUnq ;gka
ij dsoy ;g gS fd D;k ftl le; ;g vkjkth
dq'kky dks izkIr gqbZ Fkh ml le; dq'kky vkSj uUgs
,d la;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; Fks vkSj D;k dq'kky dh
gSfl;r drkZ [kkunku dh Fkh vkSj D;k iV~Vk dq'kky
vkSj uUgs ds la;qDr iz;klksa ls izkIr fd;k x;k FkkA
;g fcUnq fopkj.kh; gSA bl lEcU/k esa pdcUnh
vf/kdkjh ljkstuhuxj dh ewy i=koyh dk voyksdu
fd;k x;kA fnukad 22-09-2014 dks fuxjkuhdrkZ
jkecD'k dk c;ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dh i=koyh esa
gqvk gS vkSj ml le; mUgksaus viuh mez 45 ls 47 o"kZ
crk;k gS vkSj blls LIk"V gS fd tc D;k ;g iV~Vk
crk;k tk jgk gS ml le; jkecD'k iSnk ugha gq, Fks
vkSj izFke pdz pdcUnh esa Hkh jkecD'k iq= uUgs iSnk
ugha gq, FksA i=koyh esa jke'kadj iq= gjh izlkn
fuoklh [kkuiqj eÅ dk c;ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds
;gka gqvk gSA ;g c;ku 2015 esa jke'kadj }kjk fn;k
x;k gSA ml le; mudh mez 64 o"kZ FkhA buds }kjk
;g crk;k x;k gS fd dq'kky vkSj uUgs fookfnr
vkjkth ij vk/ks&vk/ks Hkkx ij dkfct gSA nwljs xokg
eqUuk flag }kjk Hkh ;gh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd
fookfnr vkjkth ij nksuks vk/ks&vk/ks Hkkx gSA i=koyh
esa jkeyyh iRuh j.kthr flag iq=h dq'kky dk Hkh
c;ku gqvk gSA buds }kjk dgk x;k gS fd 1955 esa 6
ch?kk Hkwfe dk vdsys iV~Vk gqvk FkkA jekdkUr vius
iV~Vs okyh Hkwfe ij dkfct gSA i=koyh esa tks iwoZ
jftLVj dh udy yxh gSA mlds vuqlkj edku
uECkj 350 jekdkUr dk ifjokj jekdkUr ds eqf[k;k ds
#i esa vafdr gS rFkk 398 ij Hkh jekdkUr dk uke
vafdr gSA 350 ij jkecD'k dk Hkh uke vafdr gS rFkk
,d iwoZ jftLVj dh udy vkSj laYkXu gS ftlesa drkZ
[kkunku dq'kky gSA mlesa jkecD'k iq= uUgk dk uke
Hkh vafdr gSA i=koyh esa 1369&1371 Qlyh dh
[krkSuh ij ,d vkns'k dk vadu gSA ;g vkns'k fnuakd
4 All. Rama Kant Vs. Dy. Directore of Consolidation& Anr.
447
05-10-1961 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa dq'kky
iq= xksiky dk uke xkVk la[;k&222 jdck 10 foLok
,oa nwljk xkVk Li"V ugha gS ftlij vkns'k crkSj
lhjnkj vafdr fd;k x;k gSA ewy #i ls ;g [kkrk
Ålj [kkrk Fkk iV~Vs ds #i esa fnukad 25-01-1995 dk
tks iV~Vk izLRkqr fd;k x;k gS iV~Vk fu;e 176 ds
vUrXkZr izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mlesa xkVk la[;k&422
jdCkk 5 ch?kk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA xkVk la[;k 222
jdck 10 foLok vkSj 401 jdck 2 ch?kk vafdr fd;k
x;k gS ;g iV~Vk Hkwfe izcU/kd lfefr }kjk fnukad 2501-1955 dks fn;k x;k gS ysfdu i=koyh esa tks
[krkSuh layXu gS mlesa Ålj [kkrs dk xkVk
la[;k&401 vkSj 222 gSA 422 xkVsa ij vksoj jkbfVax
gS vkSj tks QkeZ 58 i=koyh esa lyaXu gS mlesa Hkh
xkVk la[;k 422 jdck 5 ch?kk Hkh fHkUu L;kgh ls
vafdr gS rFkk ,l0Mh0vks0 ds vkns'k fnukad 05-101961 esa Hkh xkVk la[;k&422 ij vksoj jkbfVax djds
vadu fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa ;g izdj.k ,d ckj QthZ
vadu dk Hkh izrhr gksrk gSA D;ksafd Ålj [kkrs dk 5
ch?kk jdck vksoj jkbfVax vkSj fHkUu L;kgh ls vafdr
djds fdlh Hkh [kkrsnkj dk uke vafdr ugha fd;k tk
ldrkA blesa xkaolHkk dk Hkh rFkk ljdkj dk Hkh fgr
ns[kk tkuk pkfg,A nksuksa voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius
vkns'k esa bu lk{;ksa dks ugha ns[kk x;k gS rFkk
izfri{kh }kjk tks dFku 1955 ds iV~Vs ds lEcU/k esa
fd;k tk jgk gS mldk vuqikyu 1961 esa 1369&1371
Qlyh dh [krkSuh esa fd;k tk jgk gSA ;g Hkh ,d
lafnX/k izdj.k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ jkecD'k dh fuxjkuh
dk iz'u lg[kkrsnkjh dk gS ysfdu blls Hkh cM+k fcUnq
ljdkj ds fgr dk gSA D;ksafd xkVk la[;k 422 ij
vksoj jkbfVax djds 5 ch?kk Ålj [kkrs dk jdCkk
[kkfjt djds dq'kky iq= xksiky ds uke vafdr fd;k
x;k vkSj ;gh jdck muds okfjl izfri{kh jekdkUr ds
uke Hkh ntZ gks x;kA ftlds lEca/k esa nksuksa voj
U;k;ky;ksa }kjk dksbZ Hkh foospuk ugha dh x;h gSA bl
dkj.k voj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks LFkkfir ugha fd;k
tk ldrkA jkecD'k dh fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus
;ksX; gSA
vkns'k

xzke&[kkuiqj
eÅ
ijxuk&dkdksjh]
rglhy o ftyk&y[kuÅ ds [kkrk la[;k&67 ds
lEcU/k esa fuxjkuhdrkZ jkecD'k iq= uUgs dh fuxjkuh
Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k
fnuakd 31-05-2019 rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k
fnukad 17-10-2022 fujLr djds i=koyh pdCkUnh
vf/kdkjh ljkstuhuxj dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk
izR;kofrZr dh tkrh gSA fuxjkuh ds lEca/k esa fof/kd
ijh{k.k djsa fd D;k 1955 esa og la;qDr ifjokj dk
lnL; Fkk rFkk ifjokj ds drkZ [kkunku dq'kky Fks
vkSj la;qDRk laxzg ls iV~Vk izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj
ml ij jkecD'k dk D;k gd curk gS\ rFkk ewy
[kkrsnkj dq'kky iq= xksiky ds uke xkVk la[;k&422
jdck 5 ch?kk Ålj [kkrs esa [kkfjt djds ntZ fd;k
x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa 1955 dk QkeZ 58 tks iV~Vs ds
#i esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mlesa xkVk la[;k&422
dk vadu fHkUu L;kgh ls vafdr gS rFkk tks vkns'k
Ålj [kkrs ij ijxukf/kdkjh }kjk vafdr fn[kk;k tk
jgk gS mlesa Hkh vkns'k esa xkVk la[;k&422 dks vksoj
jkbfVax fd;k x;k gSA bu rF;ksa dks fof/kor~ ijh{k.k
xkao lHkk dks ,oa ljdkj dks i{kdkj cukrs gq, ijh{k.k
djds rFkk vU; ewy fcUnqvksa ij Hkh nksuksa i{kks dks lqu
djds okn dks pkj ekg ds vUnj fu.khZr djsaA i=koyh
pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ljkstuhuxj U;k;ky; ij fnukad
20-03-2025 dks izLrqr gksA"

5. The brief facts for disposal of the
case, as stated in the writ petition, are
extracted as under :-

"4. Father of the petitioner being
landless person was granted patta by the
Land Management Committee of Khata
No.67 Gata no 422, 222, 401 on dated
25.01.1955.

5. That it is relevant to mention
here that as reveals from the records some
proceeding
for
correction
of
paper/cancellation of patta was initiated by
the Gram Samaj Khanpur Mau against the
father of the petitioner khushala which was
subsequently
dropped
vide
order
dated.05.10.1961 passed by Sub Divisional
Officer Lucknow.

6. That during first consolidation
scheme in the year 1962, in pursuance of
the order dated 5.10.1961 passed by S.D.O
Lucknow, the name of the father of the
petitioner was entered in the records vide
order dated. 13.1.1963 passed by Assistant
Consolidation Officer in case no.143 Over
Khata No. 67 Gata No. 422, 222, 401 and
since then his father was recorded and
since 1955 his father was in peaceful
occupation and possession of the property
in dispute and after his death the petitioner
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is in peaceful possession and occupation of
the same.

7. That it is relevant mention here
that in the year 1976 the father of opposite
party no.2 Nanhey being landless person
had also been granted patta which had
been recorded in revenue records vide
order
dated.
23.04.1976
passed
by
Supervisor kanoongo since 1976 his father
was in peaceful occupation and possession
of the property in dispute and after his
death the respondent no.2 is in peaceful
possession and occupation of the same and
recorded in the revenue records.

8. That since 1955 till start of the
first consolidation in the year 1962 which
concluded in the year 1982 Nanhey the
father of opposite party no.2 or the
opposite party no.2 Ram Bux had never
raised any objection/claim with regard to
the property in question as being ancestral
or being joint Hindu family property and
the father of the petitioner was recorded as
Karta Khandan.

9. That after the death of Nanhey
the father of opposite party no.2, Ram Bux
for the first time, has filed a suit U/S
229/176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act on the false
and frivolous grounds claiming declaration
of co-tenancy right of 1/2 share and
partition of the same bearing Case
No.31/41/85/115 of 1985/86 Ram Bux
versus Khushal and others.

10. That it is relevant to mention
here that without any notice or information
to the father of petitioner Khushal forged
short written a statement was filed by
putting forged signatures admitting the
claim of opposite party no.2.

11. That only with intent to create
an evidence in his favour this forged
written statement was filed by making
forged signatures and there after left
pursuing the matter and get it dismissed in
non-prosecution
vide
order
dated
20.03.1990 passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate Lucknow.

12. That there after the opposite
party no. 2 keep mum for several years and
the village was again notified under the
second consolidation vide notification
dated
27.9.2008 and denotified
vide
notification dated 3.9.2014.

13.
That
just
before
the
denotification of the village under section
52 of the U.P.C.H.Act the opposite party
no. 2 filed a frivolous delayed objection
under section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act
claiming co-tenancy right of 1/2 share in
the property in dispute on the basis of land
being joint family property and the father
of the petitioner was Karta Khandan and
his name has individually recorded in the
revenue records.

14. That after receiving the notice
the petitioner has filed a detailed objection
mentioning there in that the land in dispute
is not ancestral rather being land less
person Gata No. 422/5 Bigha, 222/10
Biswa, 401/2 Bigha of Khata No. 67 was
allotted to the father of the petitioner in
individual capacity and since then the
name of his father was recorded as Sirdaar
and there after he is recorded in the
revenue records and coming in continuous
possession of the property in question.

15.
That
the
learned
consolidation
officer
Sarojni
Nagar
Lucknow has passed an order condoning
the delay in the interest of justice vide
order dated 26.9.2013.

16. That it is further submitter
that in support of his objection the
petitioner has filed the copy of patta dated
25.1.1955, Copy of Khatauni of the year
1369 to 1371 fasli of Khata No. 67, copy of
Aakar patra 23 Copy of Aakar patra 41
with regard to Gata No.83, 164, 167, 183,
209, 253, 383 copy of Aakarpatra 45 of
first consolidation along with copy of 4land
4 All. Rama Kant Vs. Dy. Directore of Consolidation& Anr.
449
45 of second consolidation with regard to
khata no 140 in the name of Rama Kant son
of Khushal, copy of Aakar patra 41 and 45
of khata no 180 in the name of Ram Bux
son of Nanhay Copy of khatauni of the year
1382 to 1384 Copy of Pariwar Register of
house no 350 belonging to Ram Bux and
house no 398 belonging to Rama Kant
Copy of order dated 20.3.1990 and
evidence on affidavit of himself, Ram
Chandra yadav, Alok Yadav, and Smt Ram
lali.

17. That in support of his case
opposite party no 2-Ram Bux has filed the
copy of plaint of the suit filed under section
229/176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act, copy of
written statement, copy of Pariwar Register
and affidavit of Ram Bux himself and
Kunwer Bahadur, Ram shanker, Munna
singh.

18. That it is relevant to mention
here that the petitioner has filed an
objection denying the fact of filing and
putting any signature on written statement
and the written statement which has been
filed as an evidence in support of his case
is a forged and fabricated document.

19. That thereafter counsels of
both the parties have cross examined the
witnesses of each other.

20. That after hearing the parties
at length and evaluating the evidence
available
on
record
the
learned
consolidation
officer
Sarojni
Nagar
Lucknow has rejected the objection of the
opposite party No. 2 being baseless vide
order dated 31.5.2019 with the observation
that the opposite party No. 2 could not
place any evidence with regard to ancestral
property or joint Hindu Family property.

21. That feeling aggrieved with
the order dated 31.5.2019 passed by
Consolidation
Officer
Sarojni
Nagar,
Lucknow the opposite party No.2 has filed
an appeal under section 11 of U.P. C.H.
Act before Settlement Officer Consolidation
Lucknow which has been registered as
Appeal No. 102 of 2022 (Ram Bux vs Rama
kant).

22. That the petitioner has filed a
detailed objection against the appeal and
interim relief application supported with
affidavit.

23. That the learned appellate
court after summoning the lower court
record perused the entire record, all
evidences documentary and oral and
providing opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned has dismissed the appeal
vide order dated 17.10.2022 affirming the
order
dated
31.5.2019
passed
by
Consolidation Officer, Sarojni Nagar,
Lucknow with the observation that the
appellant could not place any reliable
evidence to prove the property in question
as ancestral property and proceeding
initiated in the second consolidation
proceeding is barred by section 11-A of the
U.P.C.H.Act. The father of the petitioner
and there after petitioner is continuously
recorded
since
first
consolidation
proceedings.

24. That feeling aggrieved with
the order dated 31.5.2019 passed by
Consolidation Officer, Sarojni Nagar,
Lucknow and the order dated 17.10.2022,
passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation,
Lucknow the opposite party No. 2 has filed
a revision under section 48 (1) of
U.P.C.H.Act bearing Revision No.69 of
2025 (Ram Bux vs. Rama Kant).

25.
That
after
service,
the
petitioner appeared and filed a detailed
objections against the revision and interim
relief
application
supported
with an
affidavit.

26. That the learned revisional
court examining the evidence, facts and
circumstances of the case and also
traveling beyond pleading, in a most
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arbitrary manner has remanded the case
before Consolidation Officer Sarojni Nagar
Lucknow vide order dated 6.3.2025 for
deciding afresh in the light of the
observations made in the order whereas the
observation itself is unjustified and not
sustainable in the eye of law."

6.

Based
upon
the
aforesaid
pleadings, the petitioner has approached
this Court impeaching the order dated
06.03.2025, passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Lucknow.

7. Opposing the present petition, Sri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State has submitted that
from the impugned order, it is apparent that
in the present case the issue relates to
Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 (in short "Act, 1950") as the land in
relation to which the petitioner is claiming
rights is the land covered under Section 132
of the Act, 1950 and as such interest of
State/Gaon Sabha who would plead and
prove its case before the C.O. concerned be
affected in impugned order is interfered by
this Court.

8. Considered the aforesaid and
perused the record including the impugned
order dated 06.03.2025.

9. In order to conclude the matter this
Court took note of relevant provisions,
which are as under.

(a) Section 132 of the Act, 1950
is quoted herein below :-

"132.
Land
in
which
[bhumidhari] rights shall not accrue.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 131, but without prejudice to the
provisions of Section 19, [bhumidhari]
rights shall not accrue in -

(a)
pasture
lands
or
lands
covered by water and used for the purpose
of growing singhara or other produce or
land in the bed of a river and used for
casual or occasional cultivation;

(b) such tracts of shifting or
unstable
cultivation
as
the
State
Government may specify by notification in
the Gazette; and

(c) lands declared by the State
Government by notification in the Official
Gazette, to be intended or set apart for
taungya plantation or grove lands of a
[Gaon Sabha] or a Local Authority or land
acquired or held for a public purpose and
in particular and without prejudice to the
generality of this clause-

(i) lands set apart for military
encamping grounds;

(ii) lands included within railway
or canal boundaries;

(iii) lands situate within the limits
of any cantonment;

(iv) lands included in sullage
farms or trenching grounds belonging as
such to a local authority;

(v) lands acquired by a town
improvement trust in accordance with a
scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the
U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U.P.
Act V11 of 1919) or by a municipality for a
purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause
(c) of Section 8 of the U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916 (U.P. Act VII of 1916); and

(vi) lands set apart for public
purposes under the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954).]"

(b). Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (in short "Act, 1953"), is extracted
herein under :-

"3. Definitions.- In this Act unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject
or context -

(1) X X X
4 All. Rama Kant Vs. Dy. Directore of Consolidation& Anr.
451

(2) "Consolidation" means rearrangement of holdings in a unit amongst
several tenure-holders in such a way as to
make their respective holdings more
compact];

Explanation. - For the purpose of
this clause, holding shall not include the
following:

(i) Land which was grove in
agricultural year immediately preceding
the year in which the notification under
Section 4 was issued;

(ii) land subject to fluvial action
and intensive soil erosion;

(iii) land mentioned in Section
132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950;

(iv) such compact areas as are
normally subject to prolonged waterlogging;

(v) usar, kallar and rihala plots
forming
a
compact
area
including
cultivated land within such area"

(c). Section 29-C of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in
short "Act, 1953") is extracted herein under
:-

"29-C.
Vesting
of
land
contributed for public purposes. - (1) The
land contributed for public purposes under
this Act shall, with effect from the date on
which the tenure-holders became entitled to
enter into possession of the chaks allotted
to them under the provisions of this Act as
amended from time to time, vest and be
always deemed to have vested in the Gaon
Sabha [in an area in which Section 117 of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 applies and in the
State Government in any other area] and
shall be utilised for the purpose for which it
was earmarked in the final Consolidation
Scheme, or in case of failure of that
purpose, for such other purposes as may be
prescribed.

(2) The provisions of Section 117
of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act
No.1 of 1951), shall mutatis mutandis apply
to such land] [ vested in the Gaon Sabha]
as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha
by virtue of a declaration made by the State
Government under sub-section (1) of that
section, and as if the declaration were
made subject to the conditions respecting
utilisation specified in sub-section (1) of
this Section]

(3) [* * *]"

(d) Section 11 of the Act of 1953
says as under :-

11. Appeals. - (1) Any party to the
proceedings under Section 9-A, aggrieved
by an order of the Assistant Consolidation
Officer or the Consolidation Officer under
that section, may, within 21 days of the
date of the order, file an appeal before the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who
shall after affording opportunity of being
heard to the parties concerned, give his
decision
thereon
which,
except
as
otherwise provided by or under this Act,
shall be final and not be questioned in any
Court of law.

(2)
The
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation, hearing an appeal under
sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a
Court of competent jurisdiction, anything
to the contrary contained in any law for the
time being in force notwithstanding."

10. Upon due consideration of the
aforesaid statutory provision, this Court
finds that no right could be provided over
the land recorded as "Usar".

11. On the subject, in the judgment
passed in the case of Ram Gopal Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Bahraich & others [CONSOLIDATION
NO.33557
OF
2018,
decided
on
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22.01.2019, following observation have
been made :-

"I
have
given
my
anxious
consideration to the competing arguments
made by learned counsel representing the
respective parties and have also perused
the records which are available on this
petition.

So far as the first submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the appeals before the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation filed by certain
individuals against the orders passed by
the
Consolidation
Officer
were
not
maintainable is concerned, it may only be
observed at this juncture that consolidation
authorities/courts have been cast with a
heavy duty to protect the right and interest
of the State and the Gaon Sabha if any
matter is brought before them.

Section
11-C
of
the
Act
specifically provides that in the course of
hearing of an objection under Section 9-A
or an appeal under Section 11 or revision
petition under Section 48, the consolidation
authorities may direct that any land which
vests in the State Government or Gaon
Sabha may be recorded in its name, even
though no objection, appeal or revision has
been filed by such Government or Gaon
Sabha or the local authorities is concerned.
Section 11-C is reproduced herein below:-

11C. In the course of hearing of
an objection under Section 9-A or an
appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings
under Section 48, the Consolidation
Officer,
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
or
the
Director
of
Consolidation, as the case may be, may
direct that any land which vests in the State
Government or the Gaon Sabha or any
other local body or authority may be
recorded in its name, even though no
objection, appeal or revision has been filed
by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or
authority.

Considering
the
nature
of
disputes raised during the consolidation
operations, the legislature while enacting
Section 11-C of the Act was conscious of
the functions to be performed by the
consolidation courts. Section 11-C was
inserted by the legislature in the Act with a
purpose and the purpose is apparent.

There may be a situation where
many a times, on account of certain
misgivings and for certain other reasons,
the Land Management Committee or the
Gram Pradhan for certain reasons may
ignore to protect the interest of Gaon
Sabha or the property vested in State
Government.

It is for the aforesaid purpose of
securing and protecting the land vested in
Gaon Sabha or State Government that the
legislature has consciously enacted Section
11-C of the Act and has thus cast a duty on
the
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement
Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to pass orders
recording such land in the name of State or
Gaon Sabha even though no objection or
appeal or revision under Section 9-A,
Section 11 or Section 48 is preferred by the
State Government or Gaon Sabha or the
local authority concerned.

It is settled law that right to
appeal is a statutory right which operates
within the four corners of the statute which
confers such right in a person or a party,
however, so far as the jurisdiction of
revisional court is concerned, specifically
in the case of revisional court created
under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
which exercises the revisional jurisdiction
under Section 48 of the said Act, it is not a
right vested in the party concerned to
invoke the revisional jurisdiction; rather
Section 48 vests a jurisdiction in the
4 All. Sumer Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
453
Deputy Director of Consolidation to call
for or examine the record of any case
decided or proceedings drawn. Thus for
exercising of revisional jurisdiction, a
party aggrieved may or may not invoke
Section 48 and in an appropriate case, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation can suo
motu exercise his powers of revisional
jurisdiction."

12. According to the observations
made by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Amir Husain and Ors. Vs. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Ors., MANU/UP/0417/1976 : 1977 AWC 1
All : 1978 RD 204, the Consolidation
Authorities can direct the name of Gaon
Sabha or the State Government to be
recorded when it is found that there is no
valid title holder and that under the law
the land had vested in the Government
and then Gaon Sabha even though
Government or Gaon Sabha had not filed
an objection.

13. Upon due consideration of the
facts of the instant case and the relevant
established
provisions
as
also
the
observations made by this Court in the
judgment(s) referred above, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the impugned
order of remand simplicitor for reason that
the C.O., after taking evidence, would
decide the following aspects of the case :-

(i). The D.D.C. in the order
impugned has observed that the land in
issue i.e. Gata No.422 was initially
recorded as 'Usar' in the revenue record.

(ii) In the impugned it has also
been observed that there is overwriting in
the order dated 05.10.1961, passed by the
S.D.O.

(iii) It appears from the record
that the interest of Gaon Sabha/State was
not taken care of while deciding the dispute
between the private opposite parties.

(iv) The D.D.C. in the impugned
order also observed that at the time of
providing Patta, Ram Bux was not even
born.

(v) The D.D.C. in the impugned
order of remand simplicitor dated 6.3.2025
has also observed that some entries in the
Form-58 have been made in different ink.

14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid
reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 453
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ- B No. 4903 of 1993

Sumer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Aditya Prasad Tewari, Mr. S.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Indrasen Singh Tomar, Addl. C.S.C.,
Mr. Deepak Gaur

A. Patta Cancellation - Limitation for
cancellation of lease - U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
Act - U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules - Schedule 3,
prepared under Rule 338 of the U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Rules, provides limitation for
cancellation of lease on the basis of suo
motu proceedings within a period of three
years from the date when the Collector
knew about the allotment of land -
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, Section 337 - As per
Section
337,
for
the
purposes
of
computing the area fixed under any
provision of the Act, two acres shall be