# Ranjeet Singh & Anr v. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1487
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-03
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1119 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-singh-anr-v-settlement-officer-of-consolidation-barabanki-ors-54165
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

2 All. Ranjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1487

"As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or
relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different
and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives"

18. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that in present case, acquittal in criminal trial
would have no bearing on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings and Court also finds that nature
of allegations against petitioner are very serious and which have been proved on basis of statement
of victims which were also remained consistent even during criminal trial. The acquittal was not a
honourable acquittal.

19. Therefore, on both grounds, this writ petition has no force, hence, it is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1487
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 1119 of 2025

Ranjeet Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
Whether only an assertion of the fact regarding abandonment or withdrawal of the proceedings by the
plaintiff/appellants, can result in the transposition of the applicants as appellants, or whether these facts must
be proved to the satisfaction of the court?

Headnotes
A. Civil Procedural Law - Code of Civil Procedure: Order 1 Rule 10, Order XXIII Rule 1; U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 9-A(2), 11(1) - The basic requirement for exercise
of powers u/Rule 1-A, would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon
his claim u/Rule 1 of Order XXIII, and the defendant seeking transposition is having an interest
in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against
the other defendant. In such a situation, the pro forma defendant is to be allowed to continue with the
same suit as plaintiff, thereby averting the likelihood of his right being defeated and also obviating the
unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 20)

In the present case, it is noticed that the only ground stated in the application dated 24/06/2025 filed by the
petitioners before the appellate court was that the appellants for some unknown reasons have colluded with
the defendant no.2 due to which they are not diligently prosecuting the said appeal, and therefore it is
necessary for the applicants to be transposed as the appellants for protection of the rights. (Para 21)

B. Transposition can have serious consequences and therefore, the courts have to be
circumspect before allowing any such application. Once the application for transposition is
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowed, then the defendant becomes the plaintiff, and they would have full rights as dominus
litus to prosecute the case before the court in the manner they choose. (Para 24)

One essential fact that cannot be lost sight of is that the appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer
was not filed by Haripal or even by the petitioners who had purchased 1/3 share of the entire property from
him. This defect and lacuna cannot be allowed to be cured by invoking provisions of order XXIII rule 1A. (Para
25)

Apart from the above, neither before the Appellate Court nor before this Court could any cogent evidence,
material or even the order-sheet of proceedings have been produced, which may indicate that the appeal is
not being prosecuted diligently by the appellants therein. The findings returned by the appellate court in this
regard does not deserve any interference as a mere assertion of abandonment of appellate
proceedings is not sufficient and it has to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that
the plaintiff/appellants have abandoned their claim before invoking the provisions of Order
XXIII Rule 1 A. (Para 26)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, (1995) 3 SCC 147 (Para 16)

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Code of Civil Procedure.

List of Keywords
Consolidation, holdings, settlement, abandonment, withdrawal, transposition.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner(s): Somesh Tripathi
For Respondent(s): Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri
Amar Deep Yadav on behalf of respondent no. 2

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

1. Heard Sri Somesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Dev Prakash
Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Amar Deep Yadav
on behalf of respondent no. 2.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 14/10/2025
passed by the Settlement of Consolidation whereby he has rejected the application of the
petitioners, which is formed for being transposed as appellants before the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation where the appeal preferred by some of the private respondents is under consideration
in accordance with the remand order passed by this Court on 29/02/2024 in Writ Petition B No. 238
of 2024.

3. The facts in brief as submitted by the petitioners are that the dispute pertains to the land
situated Gata No. 314 area 0 - 8 - 17, situated at Village Aseni, Paragana Dewa Tehsil, Nawabganj
district, Barabanki, which was initially recorded in the name of Ghasite. Ghasite had 4 sons,
namely Haripal, Bihari, Kailas and Mangal. Bihari died during the lifetime of Ghasitay. After the
2 All. Ranjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1489
death of Ghasitay, the 3 surviving sons got their names mutated in the revenue records, showing
1/3 share each.

4. During the Consolidation proceedings, Ragghu, the son of Bihari, filed objections under
section 9(A)1 of the U.P Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 claiming 1/4th share in the property,
and accordingly, by means of an order dated 11/08/1999 his objection was allowed, and the shares
of the co-sharers were decided as one-fourth each.

5. Haripal filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for recalling the order dated
11/08/1999 on 24/04/2001. During the proceedings, Haripal sold 1/3rd share of the property to the
petitioners, and on 09/05/2003, the case was restored to its original number, and subsequently
dismissed for non-presence of the parties on 04/11/2011.

6. Against the order dated 04/11/2011, only Kailash and Mangal filed an appeal under section
11 (1) of the Act of 1953, which was registered as case No. 524/2015 (Kailash and others vs
Ragghu). According to Ragghu, the disputed land was his ancestral land where his father Bihari
had a 1/4 share in the property, along with 3 uncles. Before the appellate authority petitioners were
impleaded as opposite parties on the basis of a sale deed executed by Harpal pertaining to 1/ 3
share of the property in dispute.

7. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (Appellate Authority) decided the appeal vide his
order dated 30/08/2013 on the basis of a compromise dated 29/08/2013.

8. Ragghu being aggrieved by the order dated 30/08/2013, preferred a revision before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, challenging the compromise and stating that he was not a party
to the same, and one of the parties to the compromise was a minor. The revisional authority, after
due consideration of the arguments and on the basis of the material record, upheld the contention of
Ragghu and set aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20/08/2013 and
restored the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 11/08/1999 by means of an order dated
03/02/2024.

9. Petitioners had approached this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 3.2.2024 by
filing a writ petition, being Writ -B- No. 238 of 2024. This Court was of the view that the matter
ought to have been remanded by the Director of Consolidation rather than affirming the order dated
11/08/1999, and consequently allowed the writ petition remanding the matter back to the appellate
authority for deciding the appeal afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned.

10. It is in the remand proceedings that the petitioners have moved an application for their
transposition as appellants. In the application dated 24/06/2025 it was contended that the appellants
have colluded with opposite party No.2 and therefore, they are not appearing for prosecuting the
appeal and for the aforesaid reason, they prayed for being transposed as plaintiffs.

11. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (Appellate Authority) rejected the prayer stating
that there was no evidence adduced by the applicants in support of the contention that the
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellants have colluded with the opposite party and it is only on the basis of apprehension that the
application for transposition has been moved. It was further submitted that the applicants had an
opportunity to make the said application before the High Court, but no such application was moved
by them and at this stage such an application would not be entertained.

12. Lastly, it was contended that the appeal was filed by Kailash and Mangal, and in case the
applicants were aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation officer they could have themselves
filed the appeal, but no such appeal was filed either by the petitioners by the predecessor in interest
Haripal and therefore they cannot be permitted to be transposed as appellants in the present factual
circumstances and accordingly rejected the prayer by means of order dated 14/10/2025.

13. The order dated 14/10/2025 has been assailed before this Court in the present writ petition.

14. The law of procedure relating to the parties to a civil suit is essentially contained in Order I
of the Code of Civil Procedure, dealing with various aspects concerning joinder, non-joinder and
mis-joinder of parties. Rule 10 of Order I specifically provides for addition, deletion and
substitution of parties; and the proposition for transposition of a party from one status to another,
by its very nature, inheres in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I CPC that reads as under:-

"(2) Court may strike out or add parties. - The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may
appeared to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who or to have been joined,
whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to
enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved
in the suit be added."

15. On the other hand, the law of procedure in relation to withdrawal and adjustment of suits is
contained in Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per Rule 1 thereof, a plaintiff may
seek permission for the withdrawal of the suit or abandonment of a part of the claim. Rule 1-A
thereof 1 deals with an eventuality where the plaintiff withdraws his suit or abandons his claim, but
a pro forma defendant has a substantial question to be decided against the co-defendant. This Rule
1-A of Order XXIII CPC reads as under:-

"-R.1-A. When transposition of defendants as plaintiff may be permitted.- Where a suit is
withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a
plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order 1, the Court, shall, in considering such application, have due
regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against
any of the other defendants.- "

16. It remains trite that the object of Rule 10 of Order I CPC is essentially to bring on record
all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter of the suit so that the
dispute may be determined in their presence and the multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided.
This Court explained the principles, albeit in a different context, in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v.
Shivnath Mishra: (1995) 3 SCC 147 in the following:-
2 All. Ranjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki & Ors.
1491

"7. -.. The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the
dispute relating to the subject- matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the
same time without any protraction, inconvenience, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings."

17. As per Rule 1-A ibid., in the eventuality of the plaintiff withdrawing the suit or
abandoning his claim, a proforma defendant, who has a substantial question to be decided against
the co-defendant, is entitled to seek his transposition as inserted by the Amendment Act No. 104 of
1976. The aforesaid amendment seeks to enable a defendant, who has an identical interest, from
being denied his interest if he rested on the success of the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff wanted to
withdraw the suit. Before the defendant could invoke this provision, it must be shown that the
plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or abandon the scheme under Rule 1 of Order XXIII, CPC. It is a
condition precedent to enable a defendant to get himself transposed.

18. The principle that follows this rule is that there must be identity of interest between the
plaintiff and such a defendant who wants to transpose as a plaintiff. It must be a suit where the
defendant is entitled to succeed automatically on the success of the plaintiff in the suit. Such a
defendant is usually called a pro forma defendant. To put it in other words, both parties are
projecting the same claim against other defendants, and therefore, the success of one is the success
of the other. In such cases, the law comes to the rescue of such a defendant so that the plaintiff,
who has a similar right, cannot defeat the right of the defendant by colluding with other contesting
defendants.**plaintiff for the determination of such a question against the said co-defendant in the
given suit itself.

19. The very nature of the provisions contained in Rule 1-A, ibid. leaves nothing to doubt that
the powers of the Court to grant such a prayer for transposition are very wide and could be
exercised for effectual and comprehensive adjudication of all the matters in controversy in the suit.

20. The basic requirement for exercise of powers under Rule 1-A, ibid. would be to examine if
the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIII, and the
defendant seeking transposition is having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a
substantial question to be adjudicated against the other defendant. In such a situation, the pro forma
defendant is to be allowed to continue with the same suit as plaintiff, thereby averting the
likelihood of his right being defeated and also obviating the unnecessary multiplicity of
proceedings.

21. Upon consideration of the facts in the present case, it is noticed that the only ground stated
in the application dated 24/06/2025 filed by the petitioners before the appellate court was that the
appellants for some unknown reasons have colluded with the defendant no.2 due to which they are
not diligently prosecuting the said appeal, and therefore it is necessary for the applicants to be
transposed as the appellants for protection of the rights.

22. Apart from the aforesaid facts, no other fact or evidence was adduced by the petitioners in
support of the contention for transposition as appellants.
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. As discussed above, certain necessary and basic facts have to be established before a
person can invoke the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC, namely, abandonment or
withdrawal of the proceedings by the plaintiff/appellants. The only ground taken by them before
the appellate court was with regard to collusion between the appellants and defendant no.1; the
appeal is not being prosecuted diligently.

24. The question for determination is whether only an assertion of this fact can result in the
transposition of the applicants as appellants, or whether these facts must be proved to the
satisfaction of the court. Undoubtedly, transposition can have serious consequences and therefore,
the courts have to be circumspect before allowing any such application. Once the application for
transposition is allowed, then the defendant becomes the plaintiff, and they would have full rights
as dominus litus to prosecute the case before the court in the manner they choose.

25. One essential fact that cannot be lost sight of is that the appeal against the order of the
Consolidation Officer was not filed by Haripal or even by the petitioners who had purchased 1/3
share of the entire property from him. This defect and lacuna cannot be allowed to be cured by
invoking provisions of order XXIII rule 1A.

26. Apart from the above, neither before the Appellate Court nor before this Court could any
cogent evidence, material or even the order-sheet of proceedings have been produced, which may
indicate that the appeal is not being prosecuted diligently by the appellants therein. The findings
returned by the appellate court in this regard does not deserve any interference as a mere assertion
of abandonment of appellate proceedings is not sufficient and it has to be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the court that the plaintiff/appellants have abandoned their claim before invoking the
provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 A.

27. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
.
Writ C No. 383 of 2026

Smt. Johra Begam @ Johra Khatoon ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION