# Ramjage & Ors v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1007
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 11 of 2026
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramjage-ors-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-barabanki-ors-53805
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1 All. Ramjage & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1007

7. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response
from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this
Court has gone into the merits of the case.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1007
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 11 of 2026

Ramjage & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the suit proceedings, where the rights of the parties were not decided, can be of any consequence
or entitling the petitioner to raise the plea of estoppel in deciding the objection u/s 9A(2) of the Consolidation
of Holdings Act?

Headnotes
A. Land Reform Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section(s) 117, 229 B;
U.P. Land Revenue Act: Section 34/35; U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953: Section(s)
9A(2), 49 - Merely by dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability, without going into
the merits of the case, without returning any finding on any issue cannot benefit the other party
in any subsequent litigation nor can he claim that mere dismissal of such suit proceedings would
vest any right in the opposite party. (Para 22)

The findings returned by all the three authorities w.r.t. effect of the order dated 4.4.1978 is illegal, arbitrary
and perverse. In a suit proceedings initiated u/s 229 B the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner w.r.t.
maintainability of the suit was upheld. The suit was thrown out at the threshold on the very ground of
maintainability and the court did not adjudicate upon the aspect of declaration sought by the private
respondents. Once the rights of the parties were not decided in the suit proceedings then the said
proceedings cannot be of any consequence or entitling the petitioner to raise the plea of
estoppel in deciding the objection u/s 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In case, the suit
has been decreed or rejected on merits after taking evidence and deciding the rival contentions of the parties
then certainly the finding returned in the said proceedings would have had a bearing on the proceedings u/s
9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. (Para 20, 21)

B. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the entire controversy and has considered
various evidence, which aren't available on record by which it can be established that Angenu is the
original recorded tenure holder of the entire property while finding returned by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is that undisputedly the entire property was recorded in his name initially. Neither any evidence
has been considered by him but he has only stated that this aspect of the matter is undisputed. (Para 23)
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No evidence in this regard was led by either of the parties nor this aspect was considered by the Consolidation
Officer in his judgment and order dated 13.9.2018. Accordingly, order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is
also perverse and arbitrary. (Para 25)

The Consolidation Officer has misdirected himself by deciding the entire controversy merely on noticing that
the suit proceedings initiated by the private respondents was dismissed and the said order was affirmed by
the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal affirming the order of
Consolidation Officer but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered totally fresh facts and evidence
which we do not find to be available on record. (Para 26)

The orders of all three authorities are illegal, arbitrary and deserve interference.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953; U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950; U.P. Land
Revenue Act.

List of Keywords
consolidation, tenant, maintainability, co-tenancy, rights, estoppels.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner(s)
Ghufran Hussain
For Respondent(s)
C.S.C., Adarsh Tripathi, Pradeep Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1- Heard Sri Ghufran Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing
counsel for respondent No.1 on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Pradeep Kumar, who has filed
his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 2 to 5.

2 - By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.9.2025, thereby allowing the revision preferred by the
private respondents, setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.9.2018 as well as
order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.4.2023 and directing the parties to maintain
status-quo ante and also for recording the name of co-tenants in the revenue records.

3 - It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in the present
case pertains to Khata no.25 situated in Village Sohilpur, Pargana Satrikh, Tehsil Nawabganj,
District Barabanki (old No.24), which according to the petitioners initially was recorded in the
name of Mangre.

4.- It has been submitted that Mangre had two sons, namely, Gayadeen and Parmeshwar and
all the petitioners are descendants of Mangre. On the other hand, the opposite parties are the sons of
Sitaram, who is the grandson of Anganu and according to the opposite parties the land belonged to
Anganu, who had four sons, namely, Mangre, Mataee, Garibe and Sahai and accordingly claimed
co-tenancy in the disputed land along with the petitioners.
1 All. Ramjage & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1009

5.- It has been submitted that a suit under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by
the private respondents before the Additional Officer, First/Assistant Collector, Barabanki who had
dismissed the suit proceedings on the ground of maintainability. He was of the view that the suit
proceedings were barred by Section 49 of of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was decided
by issued No.4, which was framed by him. The suit was accordingly dismissed on the aforesaid
ground by means of the order dated 4.4.1978 and subsequently the private respondents preferred an
appeal before Additional Commissioner, Faizabad where also the order dated 4.4.1978 was
affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 21.2.1979. The appellate authority also noticed that the
suit was defective for non compliance of Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and despite
opportunity given to the private respondent to make necessary amendments, no action was taken by
them. Apart from the aforesaid fact the suit was barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of
Holding Act and he was of the view that it is only on the ground of maintainability that the
appellate authority was of the view that the suit proceedings had rightly been rejected.

6.- Subsequently, the private respondents moved an application under Section 34/35 of U.P.
Land Revenue Act before the Naib Tehsildar, who by means of the order dated 13.2.1987 allowed
their application and their names were also added in the revenue record along with the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners.

7. - Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 13.2.1987 was passed on the basis
of compromise but in fact was never entered by the petitioner and they were not aware of the
proceedings before Naib Tehsildar and accordingly had moved an application for recall. It has been
submitted that it is during the pendency of the recall application that the notification under Section
4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed and accordingly the proceeding stood abated.

8. - It is onset of a fresh consolidation proceedings that the objections were filed by both the
parties under Section 9A(2) before the Consolidation Officer, which came to be decided by means
of the order dated 13.9.2018.

9. - Before the Consolidation Officer, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the
dispute is no longer res-integra in as much as the same has been decided by the competent authority
under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the suit filed by the private respondents has been
rejected by means of order dated 4.4.1978 and even the appeal preferred by them has been
dismissed on 21.2.1979 and accordingly the said suit proceedings became final and no order can be
passed contrary to the suit proceedings.

10.- The Consolidation Officer has framed six issues for determination and the first issue was
with regard to the fact as to whether the private respondents are entitled to any right, interest in the
disputed land the same being their ancestral property. The Consolidation Officer decided issue
No.4 and found that the suit was instituted by the private respondents seeking the relief of cotenancy which was rejected by means of order dated 4.4.1978 and subsequently even the appeal
was dismissed and only on this fact rejected the contention of the private respondents.

11. - With regard to issue No.1 he did not independently consider any evidence but merely
because the suit proceedings under Section 229 B had been dismissed, decided issue No.1.
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. - Assailing he order dated 13.9.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer an appeal was
preferred before Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the private respondents, which was also
dismissed upholding the order of the Consolidation Officer.

13. - It has further been submitted that it is before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that
the revision preferred by the private respondents has been allowed by means of order dated
8.9.2025, which has been assailed in the present case.

14. - It has been submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolation has allowed the revision on
merits and has also returned the findings that there is no dispute that the original recorded tenure
holder was Anganu and this fact was undisputed. He submits that this finding is perverse and
contrary to the records, in as much as, this aspect of the matter was never considered at the stage of
Consolidation Officer and once the trial court has not considered the evidence.

15. - He submits that this finding is perverse and contrary to the records in as much as this
aspect was never considered at the stage of Consolidation Officer. Once the Consolidation Officer
has not considered or recorded the aforesaid evidence the revisional authority could not have
returned a finding in this regard for the first time. It was further submitted that once the suit
proceedings initiated by the respondents have been dismissed then the benefit of the same would
accrue to the petitioner and this would operate as an estoppel against the private respondents in the
present litigation. It is in aforesaid circumstances that a prayer was made for setting aside of the
impugned order dated 8.9.1985 for allowing the writ petition.

16. - As per the previous directions of this Court the entire original record has been produced
by learned Standing counsel from which it is clear that due opportunity was given to the parties to
adduce evidence and they have, in fact, produced the evidence at length before the Consolidation
Officer . Though the Consolidation Officer, in turn has not considered any of the evidences.

17. - Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the impugned
order. They have submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly returned a finding
that the disputed property being ancestral property on which the original tenure holders was
Anganu of which the petitioners and the private respondents are descendants and consequently their
prayer is for co-tenancy. It was further submitted that it is in this regard that some agreement has
also been arrived at between the parties which has also been considered by Deputy Director of
Consolidation and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition and for affirming the order
of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.9.2025.

18. - I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and also perused the record.

19. - The validity of the order dated 8.9.2025 has been questioned by the petitioner in the
present writ petition. The petitioner and the private respondents are claiming co-tenancy while the
petitioner has disputed the family tree stating that the original recorded tenure holder was Mangre
of which the petitioners are the descendants while, on the other hand, it is the contention of the
private respondents that the property belongs to Angenu who had four sons, namely Mataee,
1 All. Ramjage & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1011
Mangre, Garib and Sahai and the private respondents are the successor in interest of the another
son, namely Meetai.

20. - It is in this regard that suit proceedings under Section 229 B was initiated by the
private respondent which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability on 4.4.1978 and
even the appeal was dismissed on 21.9.1979. Much arguments have been raised about
effect of the aforesaid proceedings which would have on the present proceedings while
deciding the application under Section 9A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The
judgment and order dated 4.4.1978 was passed by Assistant Collector, Barabanki and the
suit was dismissed being barred by provisions of Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings
Act as well as for non-joinder of the parties. The court of Assistant Collector, Barabanki
did not decide the issue on merits and the suit proceedings were dismissed only on the
ground of maintainability. When the matter was adjudicated by the Consolidation Officer
he had framed four issues which was the effect of the judgment and order dated 4.4.1978
passed in suit proceedings initiated by the private respondents. The suit was decided in
favour of the petitioner where a finding was returned that once the suit of the private
respondents has been rejected then the matter has to be decided in favour of the petitioner
and he has also considered that the order dated 4.4.1978 has become final in as such as the
appeal has also been rejected.

21. - Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the
findings returned by all the three authorities with regard to effect of the order dated
4.4.1978 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. In a suit proceedings initiated under Section 229
B the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the
suit was upheld. The suit was thrown out at the threshold on the very ground of
maintainability and the court did not adjudicate upon the aspect of declaration sought by
the private respondents. Once the rights of the parties were not decided in the suit
proceedings then the said proceedings cannot be of any consequence or entitling the
petitioner to raise the plea of estoppel in deciding the objection under Section 9 A (2) of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In case, the suit has been decreed or rejected on merits
after taking evidence and deciding the rival contentions of the parties then certainly the
finding returned in the said proceedings would have had a bearing on the proceedings
under Section 9 A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

22. - In the present case, objections were filed by the petitioner as well as private
respondents which ought to have been decided by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of
the material and evidence adduced before him. The Consolidation Officer has chosen to
decide the matter in favour of the petitioner only on the basis that suit proceedings initiated
by private respondents have been dismissed. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
view that the Consolidation Officer has misdirected himself and wrongly appreciated the
aspect of dismissal of the suit under Section 229 B. In the present case, we find that merely
by dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability, without going into the merits of the
case, without returning any finding on any issue cannot benefit the other party in any
subsequent litigation nor can he claim that mere dismissal of such suit proceedings would
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vest any right in the opposite party. Similar was the issue in appeal and accordingly has
rejected the appeal affirming the order of Consolidation Officer.

23. - The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on the other hand, has decided the entire
controversy and has considered various evidence and we find that no such evidence is available on
record by which it can be established that Angenu is the original recorded tenure holder of the
entire property while finding returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that undisputedly
the entire property was recorded in his name initially. Neither any evidence has been considered by
him but he has only stated that this aspect of the matter is undisputed.

24. - The petitioner vehemently has contested this aspect and submits that the findings are
clearly perverse and contrary to record. The arguments raised by the petitioner have been rejected
in absence of any evidence on record either before the Consolidation Officer or before Settlement
Officer of Consolidation or even before Deputy Director of Consolidation.

25. - Considering the said arguments, we find that no such evidence in this regard was led by
either of the parties nor this aspect was considered by the Consolidation Officer in his judgment
and order dated 13.9.2018. Accordingly we find that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation
is also perverse and arbitrary.

26. - From the aforesaid discussions, we find that the Consolidation Officer has misdirected
himself by deciding the entire controversy merely on noticing that the suit proceedings initiated by
the private respondents was dismissed and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal affirming the order of Consolidation Officer
but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered totally fresh facts and evidence which we
do not find to be available on record.

27. - It is for the aforesaid reasons that we find that the orders of all three authorities are
illegal, arbitrary and deserve interference. We accordingly while allowing the writ petition, set
aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.9.2025 and remit the matter back to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation who would be at liberty to remand the matter to Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, who, in turn would also be at liberty to remand the matter back to the
Consolidation Officer for determination afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties
considered.

28. - In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

29. - The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with
law within a period of three months considering that the matter is very old and pending since more
than forty years. While deciding the matter the authorities shall not be influenced by the findings
recorded under Section 229 B of U.P. Revenue Code.

30. On the joint request of the parties, they are directed to appear before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation on 3.2.2026.
----------
1 All. Tilak Ram Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1013
(2026) 1 ILRA 1013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 1168 of 2025

Tilak Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether the order for DNA test can be passed when there is substantial material already available on record
on the basis of which the dispute can be decided?

Headnotes
A. Property Law/Land Reform Law - The order for DNA test cannot be passed routinely. Only in
rarest of rare cases where there is no other cogent and reliable evidence available on record that
with the consent of the parties such order can be passed as DNA test and its result also involves
right to privacy of the parties concerned. (Para 8)

Both the counsel have jointly informed this Court that no application was filed by either of the parties for
conducting DNA test and the impugned order has been passed suo moto by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation himself. Accordingly, there is no dispute that the matter can be decided on the basis of the
evidence available on record and none of the parties insist that DNA test should be done to verify the
parentage of both the parties. (Para 6)

There is substantial material already available on record on the basis of which the dispute can be decided. It
is noticed that there are two sale deeds which are available on record dealing with the aspect of parentage,
copy of the family register and voter list are available on record and there are several revenue records
pertaining to various fasli years filed by either of the parties claiming their rights to the property of Sita Ram.
It is not a case where there is no material available on record and the matter could have been
decided only after adducing those evidence but it seems that substantial evidence is available on
record which has been adduced by either of the parties. It is on the basis of such evidence that
the matter ought to have been decided. (Para 7)

Impugned order dated 17.11.2025 (directing the DNA test) is set aside. Deputy Director of Consolidation is
directed to consider and decide the matter on merits as well as relying upon the material available on record
in accordance with law.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and others, (2022) 1 SCC 20 (Para 8)
2. Ivan Rathinam V. Milan Joseph, Supreme Court, Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2025, dated 28.1.2025 (Para 9)

List of Keywords
 evidence, succession, privacy, consolidation, substantial material.