# Shiv Balak Singh & Anr v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 631
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1000097 of 1995
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-balak-singh-anr-v-board-of-revenue-ors-53016
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Sections 331 & 333 - Maintainability of
second
appeal
-appeal
cannot
be
converted into revision - conversion of
second appeal into revision held to be
without jurisdiction - Appeal cannot be
converted into revision under Section 333
of the Act - such conversion is illegal and
unsustainable. (Para - 24 to 26)
Petitioners, in continuous possession since the
zamindari period - declared Seerdars under
Section 12 - order attained finality as no appeal
was filed - later declared Bhumidars with
transferable rights under Section 229-B -
affirmed in appeal - belated review was
dismissed
-
second
appeal
was
illegally
converted into revision by the Board of Revenue
- leading to the present writ petition challenging
the impugned order. (Para - 4 to 18 )

HELD: - Appeal could not be converted into
revision. Board of Revenue's order suffered from
apparent illegality and was unsustainable in law.
Second appeal was filed but was wrongly
converted
into
revision,
which
was
impermissible. Hence, the impugned order
suffered from illegality and was liable to be set
aside. (Para - 25,26)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

## Text

2 All. Shiv Balak Singh & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
631
quashed. A writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the respondents not to
interfere in the actual physical possession
of the petitioner over the land in dispute.
There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 631
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1000097 of 1995

Shiv Balak Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
S.C.
Misra,
I.P.
Singh.
K.K.
Singh,
Mohammad Aslam Khan, P.S. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajai Kumar Nigam, G.S. Nigam,
Sunil Kumar Mishra, Vivek Singh

(A)
Revenue
Law
-U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Sections 331 & 333 - Maintainability of
second
appeal
-appeal
cannot
be
converted into revision - conversion of
second appeal into revision held to be
without jurisdiction - Appeal cannot be
converted into revision under Section 333
of the Act - such conversion is illegal and
unsustainable. (Para - 24 to 26)
Petitioners, in continuous possession since the
zamindari period - declared Seerdars under
Section 12 - order attained finality as no appeal
was filed - later declared Bhumidars with
transferable rights under Section 229-B -
affirmed in appeal - belated review was
dismissed
-
second
appeal
was
illegally
converted into revision by the Board of Revenue
- leading to the present writ petition challenging
the impugned order. (Para - 4 to 18 )

HELD: - Appeal could not be converted into
revision. Board of Revenue's order suffered from
apparent illegality and was unsustainable in law.
Second appeal was filed but was wrongly
converted
into
revision,
which
was
impermissible. Hence, the impugned order
suffered from illegality and was liable to be set
aside. (Para - 25,26)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavits filed by
both the parties are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd.
Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondent.

3. In spite of notice to the respondents,
no one appeared on behalf of respondent
Nos.3 to 5.

4. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners have challenged the
order
dated
6.9.1994
contained
as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is further
prayed to issue a writ or direction in the
nature of mandamus thereby commanding
the respondents not to implement the
impugned order dated 6.9.1994 and further
they
be
restrained
from
proceeding
anymore.

5. Factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioners
have
been
in
physical
possession
over
the
plot
No.5053
measuring 3 bighas 8 biswa and plot
No.5054 measuring 3 bighas 7 biswa since
the period of zamindari, however, their
names were not recorded in the records of
Unnao. When the consolidation proceeding
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
started in the village, during partal, the
petitioners
were
found
in
physical
possession over the aforesaid plots in
dispute, however, the said plots were
recorded as banjar in the revenue records.

6. The petitioners filed an objection
under Section 12 of Consolidation of
Holdings Act before the Consolidation
Officer, Nawabganj, Unnao with a prayer
that their names be recorded as Seerdar
over the plots in dispute. The Consolidation
Officer
directed
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer to prepare a report
after making spot inspection of the plots in
dispute
and
as
such
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer prepared a report
thereby giving his finding that plots are in
possession of the petitioners and they are
being cultivated by them and these plots
have never been cultivated by the Gaon
Sabha and no dispute of whatsoever nature
were raised by the public or Gaon Sabha at
the time of Consolidation partal, however,
these plots are recorded in the village
papers as banjar.

7. Vide judgment and order dated
21.1.1994,
the
Consolidation
Officer,
Nawabganj, Unnao allowed the case of the
petitioners filed by them under Section 12
of Consolidation of Holdings Act thereby
directed that plot No.5053 measuring 3
bighas 8 biswa and 2 biswansi and plot
No.5054 measuring 3 bighas, situated at
Gaon Sabha, Unnao be recorded in the
name of the petitioners as Seerdars, the
land revenue be fixed according to the
Rules
and
amaldaramad
be
made
accordingly.

8. Against the aforesaid judgment
dated 21.1.1994, neither the Gaon Sabha
nor other villagers including the respondent
No.5 preferred appeal before the next
higher court of Consolidation nor before
any other court and as such the finding and
order passed by the Consolidation Officer
dated 21.1.1994 became final.

9. It is submitted that although specific
direction was given to record the name of
the petitioners as tenure holders as Seerdars
of the plots in dispute and it was also
directed that amaldaramad be made
accordingly, but inadvertently their names
could not be recorded in the records of the
village, however, the petitioners have
remained continuously in possession over
the plot in dispute and they have been
cultivating over the land. It is relevant here
to mention that after completion of the
consolidation proceedings, the village has
been notified under Section 52 of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, thus,
finding about the entries over the land of
village have become final and the title of
the petitioners as held by the consolidation
authority cannot be challenged before any
court, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners.

10. It is submitted that in spite of the
aforesaid facts, names of the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 were recorded in varg-char in
the intkhabkhatauni, though they have
never been in possession over the plots in
dispute and they have no right. Moreover,
rights and titles of the petitioners have
already been decided by the Consolidation
Officer and as such feeling aggrieved of the
aforesaid action, the petitioners filed a case
under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 on
12.8.1981 before the Sub Divisional
Officer, Unnao with a prayer that the
petitioners be declared as Bhumidars with
transferable rights over the plots in dispute,
because they are in possession over the said
land with effect from the period of
2 All. Shiv Balak Singh & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
633
zamindari and their title and rights have
already been decided by the Consolidation
Officer.

11. Subsequently, notices were issued
to the respondents and thereafter, the issues
were framed by the Sub Divisional Officer
and documentary as well as oral evidences
were
produced by
the
parties.
The
statement of the village Pradhan of the
Mauza-Unnao, District Unnao, where the
disputed plots are situated were also
recorded, however he stated that the
petitioners are in possession over the plots
in dispute from the period of zamindari and
they are continuously cultivating over the
said
plots.
They
have
never
been
dispossessed by any person till date. It was
also submitted that neither the Gaon Sabha
nor the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were ever
in possession over the plots in dispute,
further the Gaon Sabha has also submitted
that Gaon Sabha has no concern with the
said plots.

12. Vide judgment and order dated
16.7.1981, the case of the petitioners was
allowed by the Assistant Collector First
Class/ Sub Divisional Officer thereby
holding that the petitioners are Bhumidars
of the plots in dispute having transferable
rights. Since the petitioners had claimed
their Bhumidari rights over the plots in
dispute before the Sub Divisional Officer,
Unnao, however, the Assistant Collector
held the petitioners as Seerdar (Bhumidar,
with transferable rights) of the land. As a
matter of fact, the petitioners have been in
possession over the land in dispute with
effect from the period of zamindari and
they became Bhumidar (with transferable
rights) of the said land and as such, the
petitioners filed an appeal before the
Commissioner, Lucknow with a prayer that
the judgment and decree passed by the
court of Assistant Collector First Class/
Sub Divisional Officer be modified and the
appellants be declared to be Bhumidars
with transferable rights.

13. Vide judgment and order dated
4.3.1982, the Additional Commissioner,
Lucknow allowed the appeal filed by the
petitioners thereby modifying the judgment
of the Assistant Collector First Class/ Sub
Divisional Officer, Unnao dated 8.7.1981
thereby
declaring
the
petitioners
as
Bhumidars with transferable rights of the
plots in dispute.

14. Against the aforesaid order, the
respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed a review
application
before
the
Additional
Commissioner, Lucknow with a prayer that
the petitioners should not be declared as
Bhumidars with transferable rights over the
land in dispute.

15. It is submitted that neither the
State nor the Gaon Sabha have ever
preferred an appeal against the order dated
9.7.1981,
passed
by
the
Assistant
Collector First Class/ Sub Divisional
Officer, whereby the petitioners have been
declared Seerdars of the land in dispute.
Moreover, the review application was
moved by them with a delay of five years
eight months and three days without
explaining the reasons of filing the review
application belatedly.

16. It is submitted that although no
second appeal lies against the order passed
by the Additional Commissioner passed on
a review application and application for
condonation of delay for filing the same,
however, against the judgment dated
25.1.1990,
passed
by
the Additional
Commissioner, the respondent Nos.2 and 4
filed a second appeal No.17 of 1990 (State
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of U.P. Vs. Shiv Balak Singh & others)
before the respondent No.1.

17. Against the second appeal and
application for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal, the petitioners filed their
objection with the submission that the said
second appeal is not maintainable as there
is no provision for the same and the same
has been filed belatedly.

18. It is submitted that the respondent
No.1 decided the aforesaid second appeal
converting it into a case under Section 333
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act and passed the impugned
order in a most illegal and arbitrary manner
thereby remanding the paper book of the
case for adjudication of the trial court i.e.
Sub Divisional Officer on the point that
whether the Consolidation Officer had
jurisdiction to declare the petitioners as
Seerdars of the land in dispute. Further, the
Collector/ District Magistrate also directed
to instruct the State counsel to do pairvi of
the case in proper manner.

19. It is submitted that Section 333 of
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act gives power to the Board of Revenue
to call for the records of any suit or
proceeding decided by the subordinate
court as acted in without jurisdiction
manner. So far as the present case is
concerned, the Additional Commissioner
had jurisdiction to pass the orders and has
not acted in excess of his jurisdiction,
therefore, the impugned order passed by the
Board of Revenue converting the second
appeal filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4
to a case under Section 333 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act
is without jurisdiction and therefore, the
impugned order is wholly illegal and
arbitrary.

20. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the second appeal
against the order of review petition is not
maintainable in view of the provision
contained under Section 331 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
Second submission is that the Board of
Revenue has committed manifest error of
law in remanding the matter back to decide
the issue that whether the petitioners are
Bhumidars with transferable rights or not.
Next submission is that once the first
appeal was decided, the aggrieved parties
i.e. respondents in this petition were to file
second appeal before the Board of Revenue
and not against the order passed in review
petition filed after a lapse of more than five
years.

21. In rebuttal, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel invited attention of
this Court on paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit, which recites that against the
order
of
Consolidation
Officer,
a
proceeding was initiated by filing appeal
before
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation), which has been allowed in
the year 2013, copy of the said order is
enclosed with the supplementary affidavit
as Annexure SA-1 and the same has been
filed alongwith supplementary affidavit as
Annexure-1 filed by the petitioners.

22. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, on the query made in regard to the
maintainability of revision to treat the
appeal into revision can be maintained or
not, he submitted that the second appeal
will lie against the order passed under the
statute and it cannot be converted into
revision.

23. After having heard the submission
advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
I
perused
the
material
on
record.
2 All. State of U.P. & Ors.Vs. Md. Sameer Rao & Ors.
635

24. The question involved in the
present writ petition is that whether against
the order of revision passed by the
Additional Commissioner dated 3.8.1987,
second appeal lies before the Board of
Revenue or that can be converted into
revision in view of the provision contained
under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The
order under challenge dated 6.9.1994. In
view of the above fact, the order passed in
appeal
by
the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation) cannot be taken into
account in the order which is challenged in
the year 1994.

25. In view of the provisions contained
under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, the
appeal cannot be converted into revision,
therefore, the order passed by the Board of
Revenue suffers from apparent illegality
and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
In the counter affidavit, recital has been
made that against the order of the
Consolidation Officer, holding that the
petitioners are Seerdars, some amendment
was incorporated in the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act to the effect
that Seerdars shall be treated as Bhumidars
with transferable rights. A suit under
Section 229-B was filed by the petitioners,
which was allowed holding the petitioners
to be Bhumidars with non-transferable
rights, against which first appeal was filed
before the Commissioner, which was
allowed, holding the petitioners to be
Bhumidars with transferable rights vide
judgment dated 4.3.1982.

26. Against the order passed in the
first appeal, the second appeal lies before
the Board of Revenue, but that was not
filed by the respondents, rather a review
was filed, which was dismissed on
25.1.1990 and against the order passed in
the review, second appeal was filed, which
was converted into revision, which is not
permitted in the eyes of law, therefore, the
order impugned suffers from apparent
illegality and is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the order dated 6.9.1994 is
hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds
and is allowed.

27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 635
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 459 of 2023

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Md. Sameer Rao & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Kunal Ravi Singh, Rama Nand Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
In Person, Shreyas Srivastava

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 14, 19, 19(1)(a), 21 & 226 -
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952-
Chapter VIII - Rule 5, - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Chapter - III, XII,
Regulation - 7, 40, 40(b) & 40(c)- Intra
Court Appeal - assailing the validity of judgment
and order passed by Single Judge - Writ Petition
- writ petitioner Md. Sameer Rao was earlier
known as Shahnawaz - who has cleared High
School & Intermediate Board in year 2013 and
2015 respectively - by means of an application
in year 2020 based upon some newly issued
Adhar Card & PAN card in the name of Md.
Sameer Rao and also a gazette notification
approached to Board to incorporate his new