# Shanti Devi v. Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 509
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-22
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 21333 of 2013
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanti-devi-v-addl-collector-admn-d-d-c-54065
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1 All. Shanti Devi Vs. Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C.
509
without affording proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner which is essential criteria for deciding
the revision under Section 48 of U .P.C.H. Act.

11. It is also material to mention that after such a long period, further remand to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to decide the chak revision afresh against the allotment made by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the year 2008, is also not in the interest of justice rather to
finalize the allotment of one stage in the matter.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order
dated 15.7.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set
aside and the same is hereby set aside.

13. The writ petition stands allowed and the order passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation dated 28.5.2008 is hereby maintained.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 509
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 21333 of 2013

Shanti Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
 Whether Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise his jurisdiction against any order passed by the
consolidation authority subordinate to him in view of the provisions contained u/s 44- A of U.P.C.H. Act. to
examine in proper manner, the issue of the disputed plots being same or different in the earlier proceeding
and in the subsequent proceeding?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953: Section 9-A(2), 12, 44-A; U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 176 - Deputy Director of Consolidation
can exercise the jurisdiction against any order passed by the consolidation authority subordinate
to him in view of the provisions contained u/s 44- A of U.P.C.H. Act. Respondent no.2 /Chaina Devi
has filed two restoration applications, one before Consolidation Officer and another before Deputy Director of
Consolidation along with prayer for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly
exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside the order allowing the revisions dated 03.09.2012 as well as order
dated 07.11.2012 passed by Consolidation Officer, allowing the application filed u/s 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. (Para
11)
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In the earlier consolidation proceeding, Chaina Devi was party but in the subsequent proceeding u/s 12 of
U.P.C.H. Act, Chaina Devi was not impleaded and order for recording the name of Chhavinath (petitioner's
husband) on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 08.06.2001 has been allowed which is not proper exercise of
jurisdiction by consolidation authorities. (Para 10)

The Deputy Director of Consolidation/revisional court can decide the entire dispute after impleading the
respondent no.2/Chaina Devi as party in both the revisions in proper manner, considering the earlier orders
passed by the consolidation authorities u/s 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and Section 12 of U.P. C.H. Act. (Para 12)

No interference is required against the impugned order dated 14.03.2013.

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

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

List of Keywords
 consolidation, subordinate, plot, revision, Condonation, jurisdiction.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, Senior Counsel, Mr. Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. B.N. Pathak, Standing Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abrar Ahamad
Siddiqui, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh learned Counsel for respondent
no. 2 and Mr. B. N. Pathak learned standing counsel for state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no. 661 situated in Village - Bithri
Chainpur, Pargana, Tehasil & District - Bareilly. According to petitioner, her husband, namely,
Chhavinath purchased some area of plot no. 661 from Ram Bharosey through registered sale-dead
dated 8.6.2001 and respondent nos. 3 to 5 also purchased some area of plot no. 661 from Ram
Bharosey through registered sale dead dated 21-12-1999. In the proceeding under Section 9- A (2)
of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Acts 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") it has been
held that Sohan Lal (father of Ram Bharosey) cannot be recorded over Khata No-99 Aa in view of
judgment & decree dated 30.8.1982 passed by revenue court under Section 176 of UP. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act"),
accordingly, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 17.1.1990 expunged the name of Sohan Lal
from Khata No- 99Aa and entries of Chaina Devi as well as Chuno Devi were affirmed. The order
of Consolidation Officer dated 17.1.1990 was maintained in appeal by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation vide order dated 23.8.1991 as well as by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 31.3.1999 so for as claim of Sohan Lal was concerned but in respect to Rahaman Shah
(vendee of Smt Chaina Devi) the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.1.1990 was partly
modified. One proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H Act was initiated by Chhavinath (husband
of petitioner) for recording of his name on the basis of sale-deed dated 8.6.2001, alleged to be
executed by Ram Bharose. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.3.2005 rejected the
application filed by Chhavinath under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act. The order of Consolidation
1 All. Shanti Devi Vs. Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C.
511
Officer was maintained in appeal by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated
25.5.2007 as well as in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.1.2008.
Respondent nos. 3 to 5 Ram Sewak & 2 others, vendees of Ram Bharosey on the basis of sale deed
alleged to be executed on 21.12.1999, filed an application under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act which
was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.4.2000 directing to record the names of
Ram Sewak & 2 others in place of Ram Bharosey. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated
6.4.2000, direct revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Chhavinath (husband of
petitioner) which was allowed vide order dated 3.9.2012, setting aside the order of Consolidation
Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. After passing of remand
order dated 3.9.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Consolidation Officer vide order
dated 7.11.2012 ordered to record the name of Chhavinath on the basis of sale deed dated 8.6.2001
as well as name of Ram Sewak & 2 others on the basis of sale deed dated 21.12.1999, alleged to be
executed by Ram Bharosey. Against the order dated 7.11.2012, respondent no.2/Chaina Davi filed
a restoration application before Consolidation Officer as well as before Deputy Director of
Consolidation on 29.1.2013 against the order dated 3.9.2012 alongwith application under Section 5
of Indian Limitation Act. Respondent nos.3 to 5 alongwith Shanti Devi filed objection to the
aforementioned time barred restoration application. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order
dated 14.3.2013 allowed the restoration application filed by respondent no.2/Chaina Devi, setting
aside the orders dated 3.9.2012 & 7.11.2012 and restored the revision on its original number.
Hence this writ petition for following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned
order dated 14.3.2013, passed by the Additional Collector (Administration) / Deputy Director of
Consolidation, District Bareilly (Annexure No.11 to the writ petition)."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 17.4.2013 and stayed the further proceedings of
Revision No. 346 & 347 in pursuance of the order dated 14.3.2013.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 17.4.2013 parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order dated 14.3.2013
passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, restoring the proceedings of revision is perverse and
without jurisdiction, as such, impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further
submitted that proper objection has been filed on behalf of petitioner against the application under
Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act filed in support of restoration applications filed by respondent
no-2/Chaina Devi. He further submitted that earlier adjudication has taken place in respect of Khata
No-99Aa but present dispute relates to Khata No-99, as such, impugned order dated 14.3.2013
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that two separate restoration
applications were filed on behalf of respondent no-2 before Consolidation Officer & Deputy
Director of Consolidation but Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in
setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer as remedy against the order of Consolidation
Officer lies in appeal. He further submitted that respondent no.2 was not party before Consolidation
Officer as well as before Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, she has no right/ locus to apply
for restoration/recall before consolidation officer/ Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted that respondent no.-2 has no concern with plot no. 661, as such, she has no locus to file
restoration / recall against the orders passed by consolidation authorities.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no-2 submitted that earlier
proceedings under section-9 A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act initiated by Ram Bharosey and Section-12
of U.P.C.H. Act initiated by Chhavinath (petitioner's husband) was decided against the Ram
Bhrosey as well as Chhavinath as instant proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act is barred by
principle of res judicata. He further submitted that order recording the names of petitioner as well
as respondent no 2 to 5, has been passed without impleading the respondent no 2 as party, as such,
orders are illegal. He further submitted that in earlier proceeding under section-12 of U.P.C.H. Act
initiated by Chhavinath (petitioner's husband) , respondent no-2 was party, as such, in the
subsequent proceeding initiated under section-12 of U.P.CH. Act, order cannot be passed without
impleading the respondent no-2 as party. He submitted restoration applications along with prayer
for condonation of delay were properly filed before Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy
Director of Consolidation. He submitted that under the impugned order dated 14.3.2013, restoration
applications have been allowed restoring the proceedings of revision to their original numbers in
order to decide the matter on merit after opportunity of hearing to respondent no-2 which requires
no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He
submitted that Ram Bharosey had no right to execute sale-deed in respect to plots of Khata No99Aa, as such, Chhavinath (petitioner's husband) and respondents nos.- 2 to 5 have no right & title
to be recorded over plots of Khata No-99Aa as vendees of Ram Bharosey as held by consolidation
authorities in the earlier proceedings under section 9A(2) of U.P CH. Act as well as under section12 of U.P.C.H. Act.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act
an order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 6.4.2000 for recording the names of respondent
nos.3 to 5 in place of Ram Bharosey (husband of respondent no-6). There is also no dispute about
the fact that Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3.9.2012 in the revisions filed by
Chhavinath (petitioner's husband) as well as respondent no. 6 (wife of Ram Bharosey) set aside the
order dated 6.4.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back before
Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. There is
also no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.11.2012 directed to
record the name of Chhavinath (petitioner's husband) as well as respondent nos. 3 to 5 in place of
Ram Bharosey. There is also no dispute about the fact that respondent no. 2 filed restoration
applications before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 3.9.2012 along with
prayer for condonation of delay as well as before Consolidation Officer against the order dated
7.11.2012 along with prayer for condonation of delay. There is also no dispute about the fact that
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 14.3.2013 allowed the restoration applications
filed by respondent no.2, setting aside the orders dated 3.9.2012 as well as 7.11.2012 and restored
both the revisions on their original numbers for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of
hearing to respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.
1 All. Shanti Devi Vs. Addl. Collector Admn./D.D.C.
513

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of family pedigree will
be relevant which is as under:-

10. In the earlier proceeding initiated under section- 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, it has been
finally held by consolidation authorities that Sohan Lal father of Ram Bharosey cannot be recorded
over khata no-99A, as such, name of Sohan Lal was expunged and names of Chaina Devi as well as
Chuno Devi remained ordered to be recorded as recorded in basic year. In the earlier proceeding
initiated under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act by Chhavinath (petitioner's husband), consolidation
authorities have held that Chhavinath cannot be recorded on the basis of sale deed dated 8.6.2001,
alleged to be executed by Ram Bharosey son of Sohan Lal in view of the right & title adjudicated
in the proceeding under section-9- A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the earlier consolidation proceeding,
Chaina Devi was party but in the subsequent proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, Chaina
Devi was not impleaded and order for recording the name of Chhavinath (petitioner's husband) on
the basis of alleged sale deed dated 8.6.2001 has been allowed which is not proper exercise of
jurisdiction by consolidation authorities.
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. It is also material to mention that respondent no.2 /Chaina Devi has filed two restoration
applications, one before Consolidation Officer and another before Deputy Director of
Consolidation along with prayer for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation
has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside the order allowing the revisions dated 3.9.2012
as well as order dated 7.11.2012 passed by Consolidation Officer, allowing the application filed
under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act as Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise the jurisdiction
against any order passed by the consolidation authority subordinate to him in view of the provisions
contained under Section 44- A of U.P.C.H. Act. Section 44-A of the U.P. C.H. Act will be relevant
for perusal which is as under:

"44-A Powers of subordinate authority to be exercised by a superior authority: Where
powers or duties are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or
the rules, made thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by any
authority superior to it."

12. The Deputy Director of Consolidation/revisional court can decide the entire dispute after
impleading the respondent no.2 / Chaina Devi as party in both the revisions in proper manner,
considering the earlier orders passed by the consolidation authorities under Section 9-A(2) of
U.P.C.H. Act and Section 12 of U.P. C.H. Act. The issue as to whether the disputed plots are same
or different in the earlier proceeding and in the subsequent proceeding will be examined by Deputy
Director of Consolidation in proper manner.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required
against the impugned order dated 14.3.2013 passed by respondent no.1/revisional court, restoring
the revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H Act on their original numbers for fresh adjudication of
dispute in accordance with law.

14. The writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.1/ revisional court is directed to decide the
revisions in accordance with law after impleading respondent no-2/Chaina Devi as opposite party
in both the revisions, expeditiously, preferably within period of 3 months from the date of
production of certified Copy of this order before him.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 514
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 12085 of 2025

Victim X in Fir No. 048 of 2025 P.S. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents