# Shankarlal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 403
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-27
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 695 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shankarlal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47216
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Sections 4, 6 & 12 - Consolidation
operation in pursuance of notification u/s
4 initiated - Subsequently notification u/s
6 issued to cancel the notification u/s 4 -
Effect - Relevancy of the final order
passed during consolidation proceeding -
Held, the provisions u/s 6(2) of the Act
left no room for doubt that final orders, if
any, passed during the consolidation
proceeding, on or before the cancellation
of notification as provided u/s 6(1), shall
be given effect to the revenue records and
accordingly, final revenue records shall be
maintained after cessation of the area to
be
under
consolidation
operations
-
Consolidation authorities are under legal
obligation to correct the revenue record in
pursuance of the final order passed by the
Assistant Consolidation Officer. (Para 8,
14 and 16)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

8 All. Shankarlal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
403
2004 1 SCC 119, State (NCT of Delhi) vs.
Ahmed Jaan, 2008 (10) JT 179, Indian Oil
Corporation
Ltd.
v.
Subrata
Borah
Chowlek, (2010) 262 ELT 3. In Jeet Narain
and another v. Govind Prasad and others,
2010(3) adj 470 SC, the Apex Court has
condoned the delay of 26 years considering
the merit of the case in which the order was
obtained by playing fraud."

17. Both the consolidation courts,
SOC and DDC, in positive exercise of
jurisdiction, have given opportunity of
hearing to the contesting respondents after
considering the bonafides of Smt. Savitri
Devi, who is claiming her right and title
over the property in question on the basis
of registered will deed executed by her
maternal
grand
father.
Mere
an
endorsement relating to some case over the
khatauni cannot confer any right and title in
favour of the recorded person and said
entry is always subject to scrutiny by the
competent court. Therefore, on the ground
of laches valuable right of any person, who
is vitally interested in the property in
question, cannot be negated.

18. In light of the discussion as made
above, I do not find any justification in
interfering the orders passed by SOC and
DDC. Counsel for the petitioners fails to
substantiate his submissions in assailing the
orders
passed
by
SOC
and
DDC.
Opportunity of Smt. Savatri Devi, to be
heard, cannot be denied on the pretext of
technicalities, who has vested interest in the
property in question being a legatee as well
as grand daughter of recorded tenure
holder. I do not find any illegally,
perversity or error in the impugned orders
passed by SOC and DDC to warrant the
indulgence of this Court in exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

19. Present writ petition is devoid on
merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A403
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 695 of 2021

Shankarlal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, Sri Shri
Krishna Mishra, Sri Ajay Mishra

A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Sections 4, 6 & 12 - Consolidation
operation in pursuance of notification u/s
4 initiated - Subsequently notification u/s
6 issued to cancel the notification u/s 4 -
Effect - Relevancy of the final order
passed during consolidation proceeding -
Held, the provisions u/s 6(2) of the Act
left no room for doubt that final orders, if
any, passed during the consolidation
proceeding, on or before the cancellation
of notification as provided u/s 6(1), shall
be given effect to the revenue records and
accordingly, final revenue records shall be
maintained after cessation of the area to
be
under
consolidation
operations
-
Consolidation authorities are under legal
obligation to correct the revenue record in
pursuance of the final order passed by the
Assistant Consolidation Officer. (Para 8,
14 and 16)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Madan Shah & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolildation, Aligarh, Camp Mathura & ors.,
2007 (102) RD 809

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri
Ashish
Kumar
Mishra,
learned
Advocate, holding brief of Shri Krishna
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
the
impleadment applicants, learned Standing
Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1
to 3 and perused the record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case and the
order proposed to be pased hereunder, this
Court proceeded to finally decide this
matter at the admission stage with the
consent of the learned counsels for the
parties, without calling for their respective
affidavits, with liberty to the respondents to
move recall application, in case, the details
of the facts as given in the present writ
petiton are found incorrect.

Order
on
Civil
Misc.
Impleadment Application No.3 of 2021

1.

The
instant
impleadment
application has been moved by three
applicants namely Rajendra Prasad, Ram
Raja & Rajesh sons of Jawahar Lal,
claiming their right and title over the
property in question i.e. Plot No. 4875/1
area 0.69 hectare on the basis of succession
that originally plot No. 4875 area 4-5-0 was
recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad, who
was grand-father of the present applicants.
During
Consolidation
proceeding,
by
manipulation, some portion of original plot
has incorrectly been recorded as Plot No.
4875/1 area 0.69 hectare. Applicants are in
the possession over the entire area i.e. 4-5-0
of Plot No. 4875 and they are paying
revenue rent. Accordingly, they wants to be
impleaded in the array of the parties in the
present writ petition and desired to be heard
in opposition and claims that their presence
before this Court is necessary in order to
enable the Court effectively and completely
to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the present matter.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the name of Gaya
Prasad (predecessor in the interest of the
applicants) was already ordered to be
deleted from the revenue record vide order
dated 14.11.1977 passed by Consolidation
Officer and in his place names of Dwarika
Prasad and three others were ordered to be
recorded over Plot No. 4875/1 area 0.69
hectare. At subsequent stage, Dwarika
Prasad and his brothers had executed a
registered sale deed dated 22.08.1983 in
favour of Smt. Battu Devi, who had also
got her name mutated in the revenue record
and, being recorded as tenure holder, she
had executed a registered sale deed dated
22.02.2005
in
favour
of
Shankarlal
(petitioner herein) who has also got the
mutation order dated 07.04.2005 passed by
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
in
a
proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(in
brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").

3. In this view of the matter, since
14.11.1977, name of the predecessor in the
interest of the present applicants was
deleted by the judicial order. At this
juncture, right and title of the present
applicants cannot be recognized by this
Hon'ble
Court,
directly,
without
it's
adjudication by the competent Courts.
Present applicants, in case, have any
grievance with respect to the entries and
judicial orders passed in favour of the
8 All. Shankarlal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
petitioner and predecessors in his interest,
they can file an appropriate application/suit
before the competent Courts to get their
right and title declared by way of taking
suitable steps under the law as advised.

4. In this conspectus as above, I do
not find any force in the impleadment
application moved by the applicants. Their
presence before this Court cannot be said to
be necessary in order to enable the Court
effectively and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle the question involved in
present writ petition. As such, they cannot
be said to be vitally interested person in the
present matter, and have got no right to be
heard in opposition. Accordingly, instant
impleadment application is rejected in
limine.

Order on Writ Petition

1. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India beseeching the
mandamus
commanding
District
Magistrate/ District Consolidation Officer,
Banda, (respondent No.3) to record his
name in the revenue record over the Plot
No. 4875/01 in pursuance of the order
dated 07.04.2005 passed by Consolidation
Officer, Banda, in case No. 347 & 359
under Section 12 of U.P.C.H., Act.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that
Revenue Authorities are illegally averting
their official duty to implement the order
dated 07.04.2005 passed by Assistant
Consolidation
Officer,
Banda,
in
proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.
Act.

3. Factual matrix, as shown in writ
petition, is that property in question i.e.
Plot No. 4875/01 situated in village Oran,
Tehsil-Atarra, District-Banda, was recorded
in the name of Gaya Prasad. In the year
1972 village was notified under Section 4
of U.P.C.H. Act. During the consolidation
proceeding name of Gaya Prasad was
ordered to be deleted, vide order dated
14.11.1979 passed by the Consolidation
Officer in Case No.10683, and in his place
names of Dwarika Prasad, Chhotelal,
Baldeo Prasad & Awadhesh sons of
Bhagwat Prasad were ordered to be
recorded. In compliance of the aforesaid
order, names of Dwarika Prasad and others
were mutated in the consolidation record.
At subsequent stage, aforesaid recorded
persons namely Dwarika Prasad and others
had executed a registered sale deed dated
22.08.1983 in favour of Smt. Battu Devi
w/o Mahaveer qua property in question
who had also got her name recorded in the
consolidation record, in proceeding under
Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, vide order
dated 06.12.1983 passed by Consolidation
Officer in Case No. 441. Smt. Battu Devi
had also executed a registered sale deed
dated 22.02.2005 in favour of present
petitioner namely Shanker lal with respect
to the 1/10rd of her share of Plot No.
4875/01 measuring area 0.069 Hectare. On
the basis of the aforesaid sale deed dated
22.02.2005,
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
has
passed
an
order
dated
07.04.2005 under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.
Act in case No. 346 & 359 for recording
the name of the present petitioner in place
of Smt. Battu Devi.

4. Submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner is that order dated
07.04.2005 passed under Section 12 of
U.P.C.H. Act has attained finality between
the parties, inasmuch as same has never been
challenged before any competent Court by
any aggrieved person, therefore, revenue
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
records
should
be
corrected
in
implementation of order dated 07.04.2005
passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in
favour of present petitioner. It is further
submitted that earlier notification under
Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act was cancelled by
the subsequent notification dated 07.06.2016
u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act with respect to the
village-Oran, where property in question
situates. He has emphasised the consequential
effect of cancellation of notificiation as
enshrined u/s 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and
submits that after cancellation of notification
with respect to any area/unit, such area shall,
subject to final orders relating to the
correction of land records, if any, passed on
or before the date of such cancellation, cease
to be under consolidation operations, with
effect from the date of such cancellation.

5. In the light of the submission made
by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would
be appropriate to discuss the scope of Section
6
to
expore
the
possiblity
of
the
implementation of order passed by the
Consolidation Officer.

Provisions
of
Section
6
of
U.P.C.H. Act is reproduced as under:-

"(1) It shall be lawful for the
State Government at any time to cancel the
[notification] made under Section 4 in
respect of the whole or any part of the area
specified therein.

"(2) Where a [notification] has
been cancelled in respect of any unit under
sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to
the final orders relating to the correction of
land records, if any, passed on or before
the date of such cancellation, cease to be
under consolidation operations with effect
from the date of the cancellation."

6. Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act
empowers the State Government to cancel
the notification issued under Section 4 of
U.P.C.H. Act by which particular area or
unit brought under the consolidation
operation. The consequential effect of the
cancellation of notification is enunciated
under sub-Section 2 of Section 6 of
U.P.C.H. Act which denots that, from the
date of cancellation of the notification
area/unit
shall
ceased
to
be
under
consolidation operation subject to final
orders passed with regard to correction of
records.

7. To avert any complications due to
the
cancellation
of
the
notification
promulgated under Section 4 of U.P.C.H.
Act, Legislation has made the provisio
under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Phrase
"subject to the final orders relating to the
correction of land records" as used u/s 6(2)
of U.P.C.H. Act explicity connotes wider
effect of notification u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H.
Act. After cancellation of notification, land
records, inluding basic year entries should
be corrected in accordance with the orders,
passed
during
the
consolidation
proceedings, which have attained the
finality.

8. Provisions u/s 6(2) of U.P.C.H.
Act, left no room for doubt that final
orders,
if
any,
passed
during
the
consolidation proceeding, on or before the
cancellation of notification as provided u/s
6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, shall be given effect
to the revenue records and, accordingly,
final revenue records shall be maintained
after cessation of the area to be under
consolidation operations.

9. Dealing with the effect of
cancellation of notification, the provisions
as embodied under proviso 2 of Section 5
of U.P.C.H. Act is also required to be
considered, which run as below:-
8 All. Shankarlal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
407

"Provided further that on the
issue of a notification under sub-section (1)
of Section 6 in respect of the said area or
part thereof, every such order in relation to
the land lying in such area or part as the
case may be, shall stand vacated;

10. Bare reading of the second
provisio to Section 5(2) of U.P.C.H. Act
denots the consequential effect in those
matters where final orders have not been
passed on or before the cancellation of the
notification. It provides that where the lis is
pending and final order could not be passed
relating to the correction of land record
before cessation of unit to be under
consolidation operation due to notification
u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, in that condition,
proceeding of pending suits/cases, in which
the order of abatment had been passed due
to enforcement of notification under
Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, shall stands
revived.
Therefore,
all
the
pending
proceedings
which
are
abated
under
Section 5(2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act shall be
revived and abatement order shall be
vacated after notification under Section
6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, in case, no final order
could be passed for the correction of land
record
during
the
consolidation
proceedings. Legislation is never intended
to prolong the litigation or to promote the
multipicity of the proceeding. It has also
never intended to leave the right and title of
the parties undecided.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
in support of his case, has placed reliance
on order passed by coordinate Bench of this
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2980
of 1994 (Madan Shah and others Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolildation, Aligarh,
Camp Mathura and others), 2007 (102) RD
809. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order
is quoted below:-

"4.While
sub-section
(1)
of
Section 6 deals with the power of the State
Government to cancel the notification
under Section 4 at any time sub section (2)
to section 6 deals with the effect a
notification under Section 6(1) would have
upon the consolidation proceedings. It
provides that the area shall cease to be
under consolidation operations with effect
from the date of the cancellation but this is
subject to any final orders relating to
correction of land records. The question
which arises is whether the order passed by
the Dy. Director of Consolidation in a
revision arising out of an objection under
Section 9 is a final order relating to
correction of land records. The words "
orders relating to correction of land
records " as used in Section 6(2) are wide
and would also cover orders passed in title
disputes under Section 9A because these
orders can direct change of basic year
entries. It is therefore necessary to examine
the relevant provisions of the Consolidation
of Holdings Act which confer finality upon
orders
passed
in
the
consolidations
proceedings. An order passed under
Section 9A deciding objection relating to
title is appelable under Section 11. Subsection (1) of Section 11 provides that the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation except as otherwise provided
shall be final A revision lies against the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation to the Dy. Director of
Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act.
It is thus clear that unless a revision is filed
the order of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation passed under sub-section (1)
of Section 11 shall be final. If a revision is
filed the order of the Dy. Director of
Consolidation shall be final. The effect of
the notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 6 envisaged in sub-section (2) is
that the consolidation operations shall
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cease in the village subject to the decision of
the appeal or where a revision has been
preferred to the order in the revision. If the
legislature intended that all orders passed
before issuance of the notification under
Section 6 be set at naught it would not have
specified
in
sub-section
(2)
that
the
consolidation operations shall cease in the
area from the date of cancellation nor made
the ceasure subject to final orders relating to
correction of records passed before the date
of the notification. When a notification under
Section 4(2) is published proceedings for
correction of records and a suit or
proceeding in respect of declaration of rights
or interest in any land shall on an order
being passed by the court where it is pending
stand abated. The effect of the 2nd proviso of
sub-section 2 of Section 5 is that on the
issuance of notification under sub-section (1)
of Section 6 an order of abatement shall
stand vacated and the proceedings will
revive. Reading this proviso with Section 6
(2) it appears that the revival of the
proceedings contemplated is in cases where
final orders have not been passed. In cases
where final orders have been passed subsection (2) of Section 6 itself provides that the
ceasure of the consolidation operations will
be subject to such final orders. Sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 6 and the Second
proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 5 have to
be read together to determine this effect. Thus
read it is clear that it is only where final
orders relating to correction of land records
have not been passed that the proceedings of
pending suit in which the order of abatement
had been passed shall stand revived. In cases
where a final order relating to correction of
land records has been passed the final order
would be affected by notification under
Section 6(1) and provisions of Section 49 of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act would
become applicable."

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the order dated 13.07.2016 passed
by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Writ B 3121/2016(Annexure No.6)
wherein
identical
matter
has
been
considered by the Court and issued a
direction to the Revenue Court/Tehsildar to
give effect to the orders passed by
consolidation authority. Relevant portion of
order dated 13.07.2016 is quoted below:-

"Before this court, the petitioner
has pressed relief no.2. Section 6(2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
provides that where a notification has been
cancelled in respect of any unit under Sub
Section 1, such area shall, subject to final
orders relating to correction of land
records, if any, passed on or before the
date of such cancellation, cease to be under
consolidation operation, w.e.f. the date of
cancellation. Thus, under Section 6(2),
final orders relating to corrections of land
records, if any, passed on or before the
date of such cancellation, cease to be under
consolidation operation, w.e.f. the date of
cancellation. Thus, under Section 6(2),
final orders relating to correction of land
records were saved, even after cancellation
of the consolidation proceeding.

In
such
circumstances,
the
revenue authorities may give effect to the
orders relating to correction of land
records, which have become final before
the consolidation authorities.

The petitioner is disposed of
directing the Revenue Court/Tahsildar to
give effect to the orders of consolidation
authorities, which have become final in
respect of correction of land records,
according to the provisions of Section 6(2)
of the Act."
8 All. Shankarlal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409

13. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also drawn attention of
this Court towards Government Order
dated
12.12.2014
with
respect
to
implementation of judicial orders passed
during consolidation proceeding, before
notification under Section 6(1) of the
U.P.C.H. Act, which is quoted as under:-

izs"kd]

pdcUnh vk;qDr

mRrj izns'k]

y[kuÅA

lsok esa]

leLr
ftykf/kdkjh@ftyk
mi
lapkyd pdcUnh

mRrj izns'kA

i=kad& 5049@th&419@2013&13
fnukad 12 fnlEcj 2014

fo"k;& mRrj izns'k tksr pdcUnh
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 61⁄411⁄2 ds vraxZr iz[;kiu ds
i'pkr pdcUnh izfdz;k ds vraxZr ikfjr
U;kf;d vkns'kksa ds izHkko ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

izk;% ns[kus esa vkrk gS fd
mRrj izns'k tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e 1953 dh
/kkjk 61⁄411⁄2 ds vraxZr iz[;kiu ds i'pkr
pdcUnh izfdz;k ds vUrxZr ikfjr vkns'kksa ds
izHkko ds lEcU/k esa Hkze dh fLFkfr jgrh gSA
tcfd bl lEcU/k esa funs'kky; Lrj ls iwoZ esa
ifji=
la[;k
2101@th&415@2012&13
fnukad 09-04-2013 tkjh dj vko';d funsZ'k
tkjh fd;s tk pqds gSA ek0 jktLo ifj"kn ds
i= la[;k bZ&2633@4&fofo/k@2011 fnukad
01-11-2012 ds ek/;e ls mDr ds lEcU/k esa
;g fn'kk funsZ'k fn;s x;s gS fd fdlh xzke esa
mRrj izns'k tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
61⁄411⁄2 ds iz[;kiu dh fLFkfr eas tc mDr xzke
esa pdcUnh izfdz;k izkjEHk gqbZ o ftl frfFk
dks /kkjk 61⁄411⁄2 ykxw gqbZ] ml chp dh vof/k esa
ikfjr 61⁄411⁄2 ykxw gqbZ] ml chp dh vof/k esa
ikfjr U;kf;d vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu gsrq
rglhy dfeZ;ksa dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 61⁄421⁄2 esa
fo|eku fof/k ds vUrxZr funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk
pkfg,A

mRrj izns'k tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 61⁄421⁄2 esa O;oLFkk gS fd tc mi/kkjk 1⁄411⁄2
ds v/khu fdlh dVd ds lEcU/k esa foKfIr jn~n
dj nh tk;s rks og {ks= mDr jn~n djus ds
fnukad ij ;k mlls igys Hkwfe vfHkys[kksa esa
la'kks/ku ls lEcU/k ;fn dksbZ vfUre vkKk gks rks
mlds v/khu j[krs gq, jn~n ds fnukad ls
pdcUnh fdz;kvksa ds v/khu u jg tk;sxk vFkkZr
/kkjk 61⁄411⁄2 ds iz[;kiu ds fnuakd dks pdcUnh
izfdz;k ds vUrxZr Hkwfe vfHkys[kksa ls lEcU/k
izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ikfjr os lHkh vkns'k ftuds
fo#) dksbZ vihy@fuxjkuh l{ke U;k;ky; esa
fopkjk/khu u gks rFkk os vkns'k vfUre gks x;s]
izHkkoh jgsaxsA

vr% mijksDr ifjizs{; esa vuqjks/k gS fd
mRrj izns'k pdcUnh vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk
61⁄421⁄2 esa nh xbZ] O;oLFkk ,oa bl lEcU/k eas Hkk0
jktLo ifj"kn ds i= fnukad 01-11-2012 esa fn;s
x;s funsZ'k ds vuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh djkus
dk d"V djsaA

Hkonh;
g0 v0
pdcUnh vk;qDr
mRrj izns'k

14.

In
this
view
of
matter,
Consolidation authorities are under legal
obligation to correct the revenue record
after the cancellation of the notification
under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in
accordance with the final orders which
were passed and attained finality on or
before the cancellation of notification as
mentioned under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H.
Act.
Present
matter
relates
to
the
consequential effect of the cancellation of
the notification wherein final order had
already been passed to correct the revenue
record. Therefore, petitioner has legal right
to get his name recorded under the
provisions of Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act.

15. In the present matter, petitioner
has given succinct description of facts that
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vide order dated 14.11.1977, name of the
recorded tenure holder was deleted and in
his place names of Dwarika Prasad and
three others were recorded over the plot in
question. Subsequently, Dwarika Prasad
and others have executed a registered sale
deed in favour of Smt. Battu Devi, vendor
of the present petitioner, who had also got
her name mutated in record, in a
proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.
Act and at later stage, she had executed a
registered sale deed dated 22.02.2005 to the
extent of 9/10rd of her share in the property
in question i.e. Gata No. 4871/01 area
0.069 Hectare in favour of present
petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid sale
deed
dated
22.02.2005,
Assistant
Consolidation Officer has passed an order
dated 07.04.2005 under Section 12 of
U.P.C.H. Act for recording the name of the
present petitioner in place of his vendor.
All the three orders passed by the
consolidation Courts since 14.11.1977 have
attained finality inasmuch as no one has
challenged the aforesaid orders before the
competent Court.

16. In this conspectus as above, claim
of the petitioner to get his name recorded in
the revenue record, in persuance of final
order dated 07.04.2005 passed by Assitant
Consolidation Officer, after notification
under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, is
justified in the eyes of the law and
authorities concerned, are under legal
obligation to implement said order passed
by the competent Court, which became
final between the parties.

17. As such, the instant writ petition
is allowed with a direction to District
Magistrate(respondent No.3) to ensure the
implementation of order dated 07.04.2005,
in the revenue record, passed by Assistant
Consolidation Officer, Banda, in Case No.
347 & 359 under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.
Act, in the light of the provisions as
contained under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H.
Act and direction issued under the
Government
order
dated
12.12.2014
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
two months from the day of production of
computerized copy of this order along with
a fresh representation which shall be
moved by the petitioner within a period of
three weeks' from today and, accordingly,
issue extract of fresh khatauni qua Gata No.
4875/1 situated in Village Oran, TehsilAtarra, Distrcit-Banda.

18. The petitioner shall file computer
generated copy of this order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad supported by an affidavit, which
shall be verified by the concerned authority
from the website of the High Court.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)08ILR A410
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 936 of 2021

Rajaram ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C./A.D.M. (E/R), Mahoba & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Gaytri Rajput, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Achal
Singh,
Sri
Mannu
Choudhary