# Ravendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 689
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-16
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 2774 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52714
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

could recall or review a final order which had
attained finality up to the High Court, in the
absence of statutory power of review under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and
whether the State Government is a necessary
party in consolidation proceedings concerning
Gaon Sabha lands, particularly public utility land
recorded under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006?

HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Sections 4, 11(c), 48 - Review/recall of final
orders - Consolidation authorities have got no
jurisdiction to review its order - Order dated
30.03.2010 attained finality up to the stage of
the High Court by judgment - In spite of that
the Deputy Director of Consolidation, set aside
the said order by the impugned order dated
09.05.2025 - Gram Sabha is only the custodian
of the land and not the owner - It is the
property of the State, which is vested in the
Gaon Sabha for the purposes of management -
Once the area is notified under Section 4 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, then by
virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation
authorities acquire the right to direct that any
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land vested in the State Government, Gaon
Sabha or any other local body be duly recorded
- Land recorded as public utility land under
Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - The State becomes a necessary party in
matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha
- This aspect of the matter was not considered
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while
deciding the application - Impugned order
dated 09.05.2025 set aside - Matter remanded
back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation
with directions to adjudicate upon its jurisdiction
and to implead the State Government as a
necessary party and thereafter decide the
matter afresh.

HELD Consolidation authorities have got no
jurisdiction to review their order. The order
dated 30.03.2010 had already attained finality
up to the stage of the High Court. In spite of
the fact that this Hon'ble Court had affirmed the
order dated 30.03.2010, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation set aside the said order by the
impugned order dated 09.05.2025. Gram Sabha
is only the custodian of the land and not the
owner, and it is the property of the State, which
is vested in the Gaon Sabha for the purposes of
management. Once the area is notified under
Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, then by virtue of Section 11(c), the
consolidation authorities acquire the right to
direct that any land vested in the State
Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local
body be duly recorded. Any land which has been
categorized as public utility land under Section
77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the
State becomes a necessary party in matters
concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha. In the
instant case, the land was used as a cremation
ground. In such matters, the State becomes a
necessary party, and this aspect of the matter
was not considered by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation
while
deciding
the
recall
application.
The
impugned
order
dated
09.05.2025 was set aside, and the matter was
remanded back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation
with
directions
to
take
an
expeditious decision, to adjudicate on the
question of its own jurisdiction, and to implead
the State as a necessary party. With the
aforesaid observations, the writ petition was
allowed. (Paras 18-25)
Writ petition allowed. (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Shivraji & others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997 (88)
RD
562
(FB);
Ravendra
Singh
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others, Writ-B No. 11144 of
2015, decided on 23.08.2024 (All HC);
Gaon Sabha Raison v. Additional Collector and
others, 1979 RD 124.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006;
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

## Text

10 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
689
termination order was set aside and to
direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate
the petitioner as P.G. Teacher in the
institution
in
question
with
all
consequential
benefits.
However,
the
Tribunal, without taking into consideration
the legal pleas raised, rejected the review
application by order dated 25.02.2025 (also
impugned before us) by observing that
review was not rehearing of the original
matter and that the review application was
misconceived.

24. In view of above discussion, we
are of the considered opinion that once the
Tribunal itself recorded a finding regarding
juvenility of the petitioner, it rightly set
aside the termination order but remand
made to the departmental authority was an
unwarranted exercise on its part. We are,
therefore, inclined to set aside the part of
order of Tribunal whereby matter has been
remanded to the authorities for fresh
consideration. Further, considering the
grounds raised and prayers made in the
review application, we also deem it
appropriate to direct reinstatement of the
petitioner in service with all consequential
benefits.

25. Accordingly, Writ-A No. 6670 of
2025 is allowed.

26. The order dated 03.01.2025 passed
by the Tribunal is set aside to the extent the
Tribunal has remanded the matter to the
authorities for fresh consideration and both
the orders impugned in this petition are
modified
with
a
direction
to
the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service and grant him all consequential
financial and service benefits within a
period of one month from the date an
authentic copy of this order is produced
before them.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 689
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ B No. 2774 of 2025

Ravendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Krishna Kant Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation
could recall or review a final order which had
attained finality up to the High Court, in the
absence of statutory power of review under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and
whether the State Government is a necessary
party in consolidation proceedings concerning
Gaon Sabha lands, particularly public utility land
recorded under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006?

HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Sections 4, 11(c), 48 - Review/recall of final
orders - Consolidation authorities have got no
jurisdiction to review its order - Order dated
30.03.2010 attained finality up to the stage of
the High Court by judgment - In spite of that
the Deputy Director of Consolidation, set aside
the said order by the impugned order dated
09.05.2025 - Gram Sabha is only the custodian
of the land and not the owner - It is the
property of the State, which is vested in the
Gaon Sabha for the purposes of management -
Once the area is notified under Section 4 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, then by
virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation
authorities acquire the right to direct that any
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land vested in the State Government, Gaon
Sabha or any other local body be duly recorded
- Land recorded as public utility land under
Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - The State becomes a necessary party in
matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha
- This aspect of the matter was not considered
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while
deciding the application - Impugned order
dated 09.05.2025 set aside - Matter remanded
back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation
with directions to adjudicate upon its jurisdiction
and to implead the State Government as a
necessary party and thereafter decide the
matter afresh.

HELD Consolidation authorities have got no
jurisdiction to review their order. The order
dated 30.03.2010 had already attained finality
up to the stage of the High Court. In spite of
the fact that this Hon'ble Court had affirmed the
order dated 30.03.2010, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation set aside the said order by the
impugned order dated 09.05.2025. Gram Sabha
is only the custodian of the land and not the
owner, and it is the property of the State, which
is vested in the Gaon Sabha for the purposes of
management. Once the area is notified under
Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, then by virtue of Section 11(c), the
consolidation authorities acquire the right to
direct that any land vested in the State
Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local
body be duly recorded. Any land which has been
categorized as public utility land under Section
77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the
State becomes a necessary party in matters
concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha. In the
instant case, the land was used as a cremation
ground. In such matters, the State becomes a
necessary party, and this aspect of the matter
was not considered by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation
while
deciding
the
recall
application.
The
impugned
order
dated
09.05.2025 was set aside, and the matter was
remanded back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation
with
directions
to
take
an
expeditious decision, to adjudicate on the
question of its own jurisdiction, and to implead
the State as a necessary party. With the
aforesaid observations, the writ petition was
allowed. (Paras 18-25)
Writ petition allowed. (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Shivraji & others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997 (88)
RD
562
(FB);
Ravendra
Singh
v.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others, Writ-B No. 11144 of
2015, decided on 23.08.2024 (All HC);
Gaon Sabha Raison v. Additional Collector and
others, 1979 RD 124.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006;
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

24. List of Keywords
Consolidation proceedings - Power of review -
Review/recall jurisdiction - Absence of review
power - Finality of orders - Gaon Sabha land
- Public utility land - Cremation ground -
State as necessary party - Section 213, U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Impleadment of State -
Remand.

25. CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Hathras, in recall
application arising out of Revision under Section
48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953.

26. Appearances for Parties
Advs For
Petitioner: Pushpendra
Kumar;
Ramdhan
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Krishna Kant
Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan,
J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition
questioning
the
order
dated
09.05.2025 relying on the judgment and
order of Apex Court in Shivraji & others
vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
10 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
691
Allahabad and others, 1997 (88) RD 562,
wherein the ratio laid down is that, it is not
open for the authorities to review/recall
their final orders, passed in proceedings
under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
in exercise of their inherent powers.

3. I have perused the order dated
09.05.2025, wherein, the stand of the Gram
Pradhan was that, by changing the
valuation of the plots in question, they have
suffered a loss of 0.520 hectares and the
proceedings initiated by the erstwhile
Pradhan-Sri Chaturbhuj Singh son of Sri
Ram
Prasad
Singh,
which
was
subsequently,
withdrawn
by
him
on
30.03.2010, could not have been done as on
the said date one Smt. Neelam Kumari was
the elected Pradhan. In the aforesaid
conspectus
of
the
facts,
the
recall
application has been allowed by the
impugned order.

4. This Court having realized that the
land in question, may involve the interest
of the State Government, as it is being
contested that the same was a cremation
ground and accordingly, no valuation can
be fixed with respect to a ground which has
been recorded as public utility land under
Section 77(1)(H) of the Revenue Code, had
passed an order by way of which the
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow
and
Principal
Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, were directed to
give point wise reply to the questions
framed in the order dated 13.08.2025. The
direction was as follows:-

"The
Principal
Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is directed to file
a personal affidavit on all relevant aspects
of the controversy including the following
issues:

A. Joinder of State as a corespondent in matters relating to the Gaon
Sabha
lands
and
properties
in
consolidation proceedings.

B. The competent officials who
will approve and swear the pleadings on
behalf of the State.

C. The competent officials who
will adduce the evidence on behalf of the
State.

Similarly,
the
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow &
Principal
Secretary,
Panchayati
Raj
Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow shall file a composite affidavit
regarding the stand of the State on the
following issues:

A. Joinder of State as a corespondent in matters relating to the Gaon
Sabha
lands
and
properties
in
consolidation proceedings.

B. The competent officials who
will approve and swear the pleadings on
behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

C. The competent officials who
will adduce the evidence on behalf of the
Gaon Sabha.

Put this matter on 22.09.2025 in
the list of fresh cases along with Writ-B
No.2718 of 2025 (Chauhan Kalicharan v.
State of U.P. and 3 others)."

5. In compliance of the said order
dated
13.08.2025,
Principal
Secretary
Department of Revenue, Government of
Uttar Pradesh has filed his personal
affidavit and in brief has submitted as
follows:-

(i) Section 4(1) of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950, provides all the rights of
estate and intermediaries abolished from
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01.07.1952 and got vested in the State
Government;

(ii)
Section
3(2A)
of
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the
expression "consolidation area" means the
area in respect of which a notification
under Section 4 has been issued, except
such portions thereof to which the
provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, or
any other law by which the Zamindari
system has been abolished, do not apply;

(iii) Section 11C of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953,
provides that the consolidation authorities
may direct any land vesting in the State
Government, Gaon Sabha or any other
local body/authority and their name being
recorded, even in absence of any objection,
appeal
or
revision
filed
by
such
government;

(iv) Section 213 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, provides that subject to the
provision of the said Code or the rules
made thereunder, the State Government
shall be made a party to any suit instituted
by or against the Gram Panchayat or local
authority under the Code. Section 213 of
Code, 2006 is as follows:-

"Subject to the provisions of this
Code or the rules made there under, the
State Government shall be made a party to
any suit instituted by or against the Gram
Panchayat or local authority under this
Code."

6. From the conjoint reading of the
aforesaid provisions, learned Standing
Counsel has contended that the joinder of
the
State
as
a
co-respondent
in
consolidation matters concerning Gaon
Sabha lands and properties is essential, in
order to protect the interest of the State. He
has further contended that Section 213 of
the Code, 2006 in so many words states
that the State Government shall be made a
party to any suit which is instituted by or
against the Gram Panchayat or local
authority under the Code.

7. In respect of the second set of
questions pertaining to the procedure for
the conduct of the Gram Panchayat
litigations, the respondents rely upon
Appendix-II to the Rule 74(f) of U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and submitted
that the provisions of para-13(2) of the
Appendix-II to the Rule 74(f) of the Rules,
2016, further enumerates the necessity of a
written statement duly signed by the
Collector.
For
the
ready
reference
paragraph 18(1) and (2) of Appendix-II to
the Rule 74(f) of Rules, 2016; along with
provisions of paragraph 13(2) of AppendixII to the Rule 74(f) of Rules, 2016 is quoted
below:

"Para
18.
(1)
The
State
Government shall be a necessary party in
the following classes of suits instituted
against the Gram Panchayat:

(a) Suits under sections 59 to 61
and 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, in
which the cause of action accrued before
the date of vesting.

(b) Suits for the declaration of the
rights and/or of recovery of possession by a
bhumidhar.

(c) Suit by persons claiming the
land or any of the things vested in a Gram
Panchayat or a local authority under the
Revenue Code, 2006 or the enactment
repealed by the Revenue Code.

(d) Suits, the decision in which is
likely to affect adversely or otherwise, the
land
revenue
payable
to
the
State
Government.

In all such cases the Collector
and/or the Government would also be
receiving copies of the plaint and summons
and the line of defence which is to be
10 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693
adopted in such cases by the Land
Management Committee will be governed
with reference to instructions received from
the Collector.

(2) The Collector shall appoint
one of his experienced subordinate officers
as Special Officer on whom shall rest the
responsibility for doing proper pairvi of
cases in which the State Government is also
a party.

13.(2)
In
cases
where
the
Government is a party, a separate written
statement would also be filed duly signed
by the Collector in all cases, whether (Q
pending in a court at District headquarters
or at Tahsil headquarters."

and accordingly, in the light of the
aforesaid legal provisions the three issues
raised in the order dated 11.08.2025 were
answered as follows:

"A-
That
it
is
respectfully
submitted that the Section 213 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 read with para 18(1)
of the Appendix II to Rule 74(f) of U.P.
Revenue
Code
Rules,
2016
clearly
provides, that State Government shall be a
necessary party (co-respondent) in all the
matters pertaining to Gram Sabha. Since
the UP Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953
extends to all such lands where erstwhile
UPZA and LR Act now U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 is applicable, therefore the provisions
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also apply to
the Gram Panchayat lands and properties
in Consolidation proceedings.

B- That it is further submitted
that the para 18(2) of the Appendix II to the
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides
that the Collector shall appoint one of his
experienced subordinate officers as Special
Officer
on
whom
shall
rest
the
responsibility for doing proper pairvi of
cases in which the State Government is also
a party. Whereas para 13(2) of the
Appendix II provides that in cases where
the Government is a party, a separate
written statement would also be filed duly
signed by the Collector in all cases,
whether pending in a court at District
headquarters or at Tahsil headquarters.

In this manner Special Officer so
appointed/Officer
nominated
by
the
Collector shall do pairvi and written
statements duly singed by the Collector
shall be filed on the behalf of the State
Government.

C- That it is further submitted
that in accordance with the provisions of
para 18(2) of the Appendix II to the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016, Special Officer
appointed by the Collector shall adduce
evidence on behalf of the State."

8. Likewise the composite affidavit of
Principal
Secretary
Department
of
Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradseh and
Principal
Secretary
Panchayat
Raj,
Government of Uttar Pradesh has also been
filed.

9. On the other side counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently urged and has
placed reliance on a judgment dated
23.08.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-B
No.11144 of 2015 (Ravendra Singh vs.
D.D.C. and others). He has contended that
on the earlier occasion the order dated
30.03.2010 was reviewed by order dated
11.02.2015 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation and on a challenge being
raised by way of Writ-B No.11144 of 2015,
this Court relying upon the judgment of
Shivraji and others (supra) had opined that
the consolidation authorities have got no
jurisdiction to review his order in as much
as there is no provision under the U.P.
Consolidation Holdings Act or Land
Revenue
Act
conferring
the
review
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction upon the consolidation courts;
and accordingly the order dated 11.02.2015
was set aside and the order dated
30.03.2010
was
affirmed.
For
ready
reference, order dated 23.08.2024 passed
by this Court, is reproduced below:

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

Petitioner is aggrieved with the
order dated 11.02.2015 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation whereby he has
reviewed
his
earlier
order
dated
30.03.2010. Point involved in the instant
writ petition lies in a narrow compass as to
whether consolidation courts have got
jurisdiction to review their previous order.
Facts culled out from the record, for the
specific purpose to the point as raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner, are that
against the order dated 26.08.1999 passed
of
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
Pradhan of village has preferred a revision
at belated stage on 09.09.2003. Deputy
Director of Consolidation Officer, vide
order dated 30.03.2010 (annexure no. 3),
has dismissed the revision on merits after
hearing both the parties. Having been
aggrieved with the order dated 30.03.2010,
Village Pradhan has moved a restoration /
review
application
dated
05.04.2010.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide
order impugned dated 11.02.2015, has
reviewed
his
earlier
order
dated
30.03.2010, consequently, he has allowed
the revision filed on behalf of Gram
Pradhan and quashed the order dated
26.08.1999 passed by Settlement Officer
Consolidation. It is no more res integra, as
the ratio decided by Hon'ble full Bench of
this Court in the case of Shivraji & Ors. Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Allahabad and Others reported in 1997
(88) RD 562, the consolidation authorities
have got no jurisdiction to review his order
in as much as there is no provision under
the U.P. Consolidation Holding Act or
under the Land Revenue Act conferring the
review jurisdiction upon the consolidation
courts.

In this conspectus as above,
instant writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
Order
impugned
11.02.2015
passed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation is quashed and previous
order dated 30.03.2010 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation in Revision No.
56 of 2010 is hereby affirmed."

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents could not dispute the fact that
vide impugned order dated 09.05.2025, in
spite of the fact that this Hon'ble Court had
affirmed the order dated 30.03.2010, vide
judgment and order dated 23.08.2024
passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015, but for
the reasons best known to the D.D.C.,
Hathras, he has again set aside the said
order dated 30.03.2010, which has already
attained finality up to the stage of the
Hon'ble High Court. However, learned
Standing Counsel has tried to defend the
said order by stating that against the order
dated
26.08.1999
passed
by
S.O.C.,
Pradhan of village had preferred a revision,
and the D.D.C. vide its order dated
30.03.2010 had dismissed the revision and
thereby the order dated 26.08.1999 was
affirmed; but however, he has placed
reliance on an inquiry report dated
09.12.2024 (which is being taken on
record) to state that the order dated
26.08.1999 was non existing.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that the said
inquiry report dated 09.12.2024 is an exparte report and the same has not seen the
light of the day nor copy of the same has
10 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
been provided; and accordingly no reliance
can be placed on the same, while this Court
has already given finality to he order dated
30.03.2010, which in turn has upheld the
order dated 26.08.1999, and the said issue
cannot be re-opened now.

12. Learned Standing Counsel has not
brought the said inquiry report otherwise
also on record, by way of an affidavit to
substantiate its argument or plead an
alternative case.

13. However, at this stage this Court
can only proceed to examine the validity of
the impugned order and the intrinsic
question of non-joinder of necessary party
and as to whether there was an element of
collusion between the Gram Sabha and the
second party or if at all there was a fraud
played
upon,
to
vitiate
the
entire
proceedings.

14. From the pleadings in the writ
petition, the dispute is with regard to the
land bearing Chak No.34, Gata No.52/2,
area 0.053 hectares situated at village
Amokhari, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras,
which was allotted during the course of
consolidation proceedings in favour of the
petitioner vide order dated 15.01.1996 on a
valuation of 10 paise, where after it has
been alleged that the name of the petitioner
was also mutated in the revenue records
and since the petitioner was in occupation,
he continues to be in possession on the
aforesaid land till date. He had relied upon
Form-23.
Against
the
order
dated
15.01.1996, an appeal was preferred which
was registered as Case No. 1114/98-99
(Babu Lal vs. Ravindra Kumar and
another) under Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H.
Act and after hearing the parties order
dated 26.02.1999/26.08.1999 was passed
and it is the said order which was
confirmed by dismissal of the revision
no.56/2009-10
under
Section
48
of
U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Bulandshahr Camp Hathras,
vide order dated 30.03.2010.

15. The counter affidavit on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. the State
authorities has been filed, wherein, there is
no denial of the fact that the order dated
30.03.2010 was confirmed by this Court in
Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 or the fact that
the consolidation authorities does not have
the power to recall/review its orders.

16. It may also be taken note of that
initially one Chaturbhuj Singh had filed a
revision before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation but the same was withdrawn
and
subsequently
the
newly
elected
Pradhan-Smt. Neelam Kumari had filed
restoration application no.2/25 in revision
filed
by
the
erstwhile
Pradhan-Sri
Chaturbhuj Singh, which was allowed vide
order dated 09.05.2025 and where after the
impugned order dated 09.05.2025 has been
passed setting aside the order dated
30.03.2010 and consequentially the order
dated 26.02.1999 passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, has also been set
aside.

17. The application dated 10.01.2025
filed by Smt. Neelam Kumari is also on
record and I have perused the same and
find that specific averments have been
made that though the earlier Pradhan's
tenure was from 1995-2000 and thereafter
one Nirmala Devi was elected as Pradhan
for the period 2000-05, and further one
Rakesh Kumar was elected as Pradhan on
02.08.2008 and continued till the year
2010; accordingly, the erstwhile Pradhan
Sri Chaturbhuj Singh did not have any
authority to withdraw the revision on
06.10.2009.
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. It has been noted by this Court that
there has been various instances where an
elected
Pradhan
initiates
proceedings
raising a cloud over the title of a property
and after substantial litigation with the
change of Pradhan or just prior to the end
of the tenure of the said Pradhan who had
raised objections, the proceedings are
withdrawn at his behest, giving at times
unwarranted benefits to an individual and
loss to the Government. It is also to be
noted here that Gram Sabha is only the
custodian of the land and not the owner and
as such it is high time to determine whether
the
State
is
a
necessary
party
in
proceedings specially when the context is
possibly with respect to a land which is a
public utility land or a State land. The
present case is also a case, where the
context is possibly with respect to a land,
which was used as a cremation ground and
as such this Court finds it appropriate that
the question, as to whether State is a
necessary party, is to be considered.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not dispute the fact that it is the
property of the State, which is vested in the
Gaon
Sabha
for
the
purposes
of
Management, and it is the Gaon Sabha
which
acts
in
accordance
with
the
directions of the State Government. It is no
longer res integra that Gaon Sabha itself
cannot claim right over the property but it
is the State who can do so.

20. My view is fortified by the ratio
laid down in the case of Gaon Sabha
Raison vs. Additional Collector and others,
1979 RD 124. After the date of vesting of
all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh is
vested in the State by virtue of Section 4
notification in the gazette; and as declared
under Section 59 of the Revenue Code,
2006 that certain kind of land which was
vested in the State shall vest in the Gaon
Sabha and other local bodies as the ease
may be, consequentially it follows that a
land which is vested in the Gaon Sabha by
the State Government, the right of the Gaon
Sabha and the State Government are
inseparable and therefore, I do not see any
harm if the State Government can be said
to be a necessary party.

21. As a matter of fact, the State
Government can intervene to protect the
rights of the Gaon Sabha; if the Gaon
Sabha fails to take action or performs its
duties as is also clear from Section 71 and
72 of the Code, 2006. Moreover, I find that
the sole reliance and expectation from an
elected Pradhan, in given circumstances
may not do justification and it may become
imperative that the State Government may
also be impleaded as a necessary party.

22. In view of the various provision
quoted herein above, this Court finds that
once the area is notified under Section 4 of
the U.P.C.H. Act then by virtue of Section
11(c), the consolidation authorities acquires
the right to direct that any land vested in
the State Government, Gaon Sabha or any
other local body authority duly recorded in
its name and in the said circumstances any
land which has been categorized as a public
utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the State
becomes a necessary party in matter
concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha.

23. I have noticed that in the present
case also there is a dispute regarding the
land being a public utility land or not and
the same is being contested between
petitioners and respondents; but in either
case the State is a necessary party, this
aspect of the matter was not considered by
the D.D.C. Hathras while deciding the
10 All. Km. Bhavna & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors.
697
application of the Land Management
Committee dated 16.04.2025. He has also
not considered that once the order dated
30.03.2010 has attained finality in view of
the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in WritB No.11144 of 2015, then in the said
circumstances, can any application for
recall/review be said to be maintainable.
The ratio of Shivraji (supra) has also not
been considered.

24. The Court is conscious of the fact
that a plea has been raised by the Gram
Sabha/Gram Pradhan stating that no
valuation can be made over with respect to
a public utility land which in the present
case is allegedly the cremation ground and
by changing the valuation, the Gram Sabha
has suffered a loss of land measuring 0.520
hectares; but the equity demands that once
the order dated 30.03.2010 has attained
finality, the said fact along with the
consideration pertaining to the plea, as to
whether, the D.D.C. has powers to review
its own order, ought to have been
considered along with the plea of the State,
as to whether a fraud has been played upon,
by not contesting the proceedings. It is also
noteworthy that Gaon Sabha only being
represented by Pradhan, who keeps on
changing and so does the stand, and as such
the true owner who is the State, becomes a
necessary party

25. In view of the observations made
herein above, the impugned order dated
09.05.2025 is hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Hathras with the
following directions:-

(i)
to
take
an
expeditious
decision, preferably within a period of two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order regarding the
application dated 25.10.2021 filed by the
Gram Pradhan in Revision No.76/341
under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act,
against the order dated 30.03.2010;

(ii) the revisional court shall also
adjudicate on the question of its own
jurisdiction, as to whether, a review/recall
application can be entertained, in view of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Shivraji
(supra) and also the judgment and order
dated
23.03.2024
passed
in
Writ-B
No.11144 of 2015 (Ravendra Singh vs.
D.D.C. and others), while considering the
plea of the State, pertaining to any fraud
being involved;

(iii) State may be directed to be
impleaded as a necessary party before
proceeding in the matter;

(iv) Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow
and
Principal
Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, for necessary
compliance.

25.
With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, the writ petition
stands allowed, however, no cost.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 697
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 1270 of 2025

Km. Bhavna & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: