# Smt. Amina v. Up Zila Adhikari Pratapgarh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 882
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-22
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1003005 of 2002
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-amina-v-up-zila-adhikari-pratapgarh-ors-53665
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Pankaj
Gupta, R.N. Gupta, Sharad Nandan Ojha,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

Issue for Consideration
The suit was filed by respondent no. 2& 3 u/s
229B of UPZA & LR Ac-the main issue before the
High court was the legality of the orders passed
by Respondent No.1/Up Zila Adhikari and
subsequent order passed by the Respondent
no.4/Revisional court. Whether the original suit
filed u/s 229B of UPZA & LR act was barred by
Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act,
whether the compromise on which the SDM
based the order was forged, and whether the
Revisional Court erred by directing the parties to
file a regular suit instead of deciding the revision
on its merit.

Headnotes
Civil matter-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,
1953-Section
49
-Bar
to
Civil/Revenue court's jurisdiction-Suit u/s
229B of UPZA & LR Act filed after
consolidation proceedings are finalized,
and the person's name incorporated in the
revenue record is not maintainable-Once
rights have been declared and adjudicated
under consolidation proceedings, a suit
concerning those rights is barred by
section 49-Petition allowed.

Held
The suit filed u/s 229B of the UPZA & LR Act
was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act-suit is not maintainable-The SDM
committed
a
manifest
error
of
law
by
proceeding to decide the suit in terms of a
compromise, particularly when the petitioner
alleged the compromise was forged, therefore,
the
SDM's
order
was
wholly

without
jurisdiction-The Revisional Court committed a
manifest error of law by directing the petitioner
to file regular suit-The matter was remanded
back to the Revisional court to decide the case
afresh on merit within a period of six
months.(Para 17 to 23) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act

List of Keywords
Bhumidhari;
Substitution;
Revenue
record;
S.D.O.; Civil suit; Consolidation of Holding Act;
Consolidation
proceedings;
Manifest
error;
Compromise; U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION-WRIT-C No. 1003005 of
2002
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Smt. Amina Vs.Up Zila Adhikari Patti
Pratapgarh & Ors 5

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
R.P. Pandey, G.P.Pandey, Mohammad Aslam
Khan, Mohd. Arif Khan
Advs. for Respondent:
C.S.C., Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Pankaj
Gupta,R.N.
Gupta,
Sharad
Nandan
Ojha,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

## Text

882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the customer. The record shows that the
transaction was deliberate and was done by
the petitioners themselves.

9. The burden of proving customer
liability lies upon the bank and the bank, in
its counter affidavit has placed passbook,
documents showing beneficiary addition by
petitioner no. 2, I.P. Address details of
petitioner no.2, time and debit transfer
details from the internet bank account of
the petitioner no.2, a document showing
password modification by the petitioner
no.2 to discharge its burden.

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid
record, it can be discerned that there has
been no embezzlement of funds as every
transaction was within the knowledge of
petitioners, therefore, the defence taken by
the petitioners is not fathomable in the eye
of law.

11. As far as the cases referred to by
the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
Supreme Court while dismissing the order
passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati
High Court has held that it is the duty of
the Bank to employ advanced technology
to prevent fraud. Pallabh Bhowmick
(Supra) is distinct from the present case as
in that case the amount was withdrawn
fraudulently and unauthorisedly without
being any negligence on the part of account
holder who promptly reported to the bank.
Therefore, account holder was entitled to zero
liabilty under RBI's circular.

12. The judgment of Bombay High
Court in Jaiprakash Kulkarni (Supra) will
also not apply to the present case as in that
case petitioner did not receive any intimation
with regard to the beneficiaries added to his
account either through sms or email,
therefore it was held that there was no
negligence on the part of the petitioner in that
case.

13. In summary, the aforesaid decisions
do not help the petitioners in any manner. On
the other hand, RBI circular also do not
provide shelter to the petitioner for garbing
personal transaction as cyber fraud. RBI
circular is to cover aspects of customer
protection, including the mechanism of
creating customer awareness on the risks and
responsibilities, and customer liability arising
in
specific
scenarios
of
unauthorized
electronic transactions. The pupose of this
circular is to act as a shield for customers
from fraudulent transactions and not as a
sword in the garb of personal transactions.

14. In light of the above reasoning, this
Court is of the view that neither the RBI
circular nor the judgment cited by the
petitioners apply to the present case. In fact,
there appears to be gross negligence on the
part of the petitioners and the case of a third
party hacking into their accounts is not
conclusively proved. Hence, this Court is of
the view that the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted. Ergo, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 882
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-C No. 1003005 of 2002

Smt. Amina ...Petitioner
Versus
Up Zila Adhikari Pratapgarh & Ors.
 ...Opp. Parties

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
7 All. Smt. Amina Vs. Up Zila Adhikari Pratapgarh & Ors.
883
R.P. Pandey, G.P. Pandey, Mohammad Aslam
Khan, Mohd. Arif Khan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Pankaj
Gupta, R.N. Gupta, Sharad Nandan Ojha,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

Issue for Consideration
The suit was filed by respondent no. 2& 3 u/s
229B of UPZA & LR Ac-the main issue before the
High court was the legality of the orders passed
by Respondent No.1/Up Zila Adhikari and
subsequent order passed by the Respondent
no.4/Revisional court. Whether the original suit
filed u/s 229B of UPZA & LR act was barred by
Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act,
whether the compromise on which the SDM
based the order was forged, and whether the
Revisional Court erred by directing the parties to
file a regular suit instead of deciding the revision
on its merit.

Headnotes
Civil matter-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,
1953-Section
49
-Bar
to
Civil/Revenue court's jurisdiction-Suit u/s
229B of UPZA & LR Act filed after
consolidation proceedings are finalized,
and the person's name incorporated in the
revenue record is not maintainable-Once
rights have been declared and adjudicated
under consolidation proceedings, a suit
concerning those rights is barred by
section 49-Petition allowed.

Held
The suit filed u/s 229B of the UPZA & LR Act
was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act-suit is not maintainable-The SDM
committed
a
manifest
error
of
law
by
proceeding to decide the suit in terms of a
compromise, particularly when the petitioner
alleged the compromise was forged, therefore,
the
SDM's
order
was
wholly

without
jurisdiction-The Revisional Court committed a
manifest error of law by directing the petitioner
to file regular suit-The matter was remanded
back to the Revisional court to decide the case
afresh on merit within a period of six
months.(Para 17 to 23) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act

List of Keywords
Bhumidhari;
Substitution;
Revenue
record;
S.D.O.; Civil suit; Consolidation of Holding Act;
Consolidation
proceedings;
Manifest
error;
Compromise; U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION-WRIT-C No. 1003005 of
2002
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Smt. Amina Vs.Up Zila Adhikari Patti
Pratapgarh & Ors 5

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
R.P. Pandey, G.P.Pandey, Mohammad Aslam
Khan, Mohd. Arif Khan
Advs. for Respondent:
C.S.C., Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Pankaj
Gupta,R.N.
Gupta,
Sharad
Nandan
Ojha,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

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

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Mohd. Aslam Khan and Sri Shadab Khan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, learned Additional CSC
for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6 and Sri
Pankaj
Gupta,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No.5.

2. In compliance of earlier order of
this Court dated 07.07.2025, S.D.M. Patti,
Pratapgarh and C.R.O. Pratapgarh are
present before this Court in person.

3. The affidavit filed by learned
Additional CSC today in Court may be
taken on record.

4. The petitioner has died and there
are two substitution applications which are
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowed but due to some inadvertent
mistake, the incorporation could not be
made, therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner is permitted to carry out
necessary incorporation during course of
the day.

5. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner is challenging the orders
dated 17.03.1999 passed by respondent
No.1 contained as annexure 1 to the writ
petition and order dated 19.06.2002 passed
by respondent No.4 contained as annexure
2 to the writ petition.

6. Factual matrix of the case is that a
suit was filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3
under Section 229 B of U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act
before respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 &
3 stated that the land in dispute is their
bhumidhari land and they are in possession of
the land in dispute from the time of their
father and their father died and respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are waris of their father.

7. It is stated that the petitioner has no
touch with the land and with the connivance
of officials of revenue department, they have
got their name entered in the revenue record,
which
deserves
to
be
cancelled
and
respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also requested
that it would be declared as bhumidhar of the
land in dispute.

8. The S.D.M. has heard the parties and
it has been found in the compromise that
name of the petitioner is entered as widow of
Noor Mohammad and father of respondent
Nos.2 and 3 died and they are real brothers
and they are actual share holders of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.

9. The compromise shown is fake and
the petitioner challenged the so called
compromise. The S.D.O. passed an order in
favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and
revision under Section 333 U.P. ZA& LR Act
was filed before respondent No.4 by the
petitioner that the order of court below is
against the provisions of law and the order
has been passed without perusal of evidence
on record and it also involved question of
jurisdiction, hence, the order of court below
deserves to be set aside in the interest of
justice.

10. In assailing the impugned orders,
submission of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner is that the suit is barred under
Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The signature of the petitioner is forged and
fabricated and therefore, the compromise is
not sustainable in the eyes of law.

11. He submitted that while dismissing
the revision, the revisional court directed the
parties to file regular suit in regard to
controversy involved in the present case. He
submitted that the revisional court should
have decided the matter on merit in spite of
remanding the matter to the regular civil suit.

12. His last submission is that no
counter affidavit has been filed till date,
therefore, the averment made in the writ
petition are correct as it has not been
denied by filing counter affidavit.

13. In spite of repeated orders passed
in the matter, record of the case could not
be produced by the SDM, Patti, Pratapgarh
and C.R.O. Pratapgarh, which also shows
that the compromise taken place is forged
one.

14. On the other hand, Sri Sharad
Nandan
Ojha,
learned
counsel
for
respondent
No.2
submitted
that
the
impugned orders do not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality and are just and valid.
7 All. Smt. Amina Vs. Up Zila Adhikari Pratapgarh & Ors.
885

15. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.

16. In regard to first submission of
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that the suit is barred under Section 49 of
Consolidation of Holdings Act, to decide
the controversy, it is relevant to quote the
same:

"49. Bar to civil Courts jurisdiction:

-
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time being in
force, the declaration and adjudication of right
of tenure-holder in respect of land lying in an
area, for which a [notification] [Substituted by
U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963.] has been issued [under
sub-section (2) of Section 4] [Substituted by
U.P. Act No. 12 of 1965 (w.e.f 08.03.1963).] or
adjudication of any other right arising out of
consolidation proceedings and in regard to
which a proceeding could or ought to have
been taken under this Act, shall be done in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and
no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any
suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such
land or with respect to any other matters for
which a proceeding could or ought to have
been taken under this Act :

[Provided that nothing in this section
shall preclude the Assistant Collector from
initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of any land,
possession over which has been delivered or
deemed to be delivered to a Gaon Sabha under
or in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.] [Inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982
(w.e.f. 10.11.1980).] "

17. On bare perusal of provisions
contained under Section 49 of the Act, it is
evident that once name of the person has been
incorporated in the revenue record under
consolidation proceedings and it has finalized,
then the suit under Section 229 B is not
maintainable before the S.D.M.

18. The S.D.M., in spite of deciding the
suit on merit, has proceeded to decide the case
in terms of compromise. The SDM has
committed manifest error of law in deciding the
suit. The suit was barred by Section 49 of the
Act, therefore, the order passed by the SDM is
wholly without jurisdiction.

19. In regard to submission advanced by
learned Senior Counsel that the signature is
forged on the compromise but the same was not
taken into consideration by the SDM while
passing the impugned order. The SDM has
committed illegality in proceeding to decide the
suit in terms of compromise, therefore, the
order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

20. The revisional Court has also
committed manifest error of law in spite of
deciding the issue on merit and directing the
petitioner to file regular suit against the order
passed in terms of compromise by the SDM.
The revisional court would have decided the
case on merit in spite of directing to file
regular suit, therefore, the impugned order
suffers from apparent illegality and is liable
to be set aside.

21. The submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the opposite party are
misplaced and not tenable in the eyes of
law.

22. On over all consideration of facts
and circumstances of the case, it is evident
that the impugned orders have been passed
in utter disregard of law settled by this
court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court,
therefore, the impugned orders dated
17.03.1999 passed by respondent No.1
contained as annexure 1 to the writ petition
and order dated 19.06.2002 passed by
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent No.4 contained as annexure 2 to
the writ petition are hereby quashed.

23. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

24. The matter is remanded back to
the revisional court to decide the matter
afresh on merit within a period of six
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 886
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23905 of
2025

Preeti ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Swati Agrawal Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Whether the applicant can be released on bail?

Headnotes
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023:
S e c t i o n
4 8 3
-
A p p li c a n t
s u b m it s
t h a t
s im il a r l y
c i r c u m s t a n c e d
c o -a c c u s e d
S a n j a y
h a s a l r e a d y b e e n e n la r g e d o n b a i l
b y c o - o r d i n a t e B e n c h of t h e c o -
o r d in a t e B e n c h of t h is C o u r t o n
1 4 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 5 in C r i m in a l M i s c . B a i l
A p p l ic a t io n
N o.
1 1 5 1 7
o f
2 0 2 5 ,
h e n c e t h e a p p l ic a n t is a ls o e n t i t l e d
f o r b a il o n t h e g r o u n d o f p a r i t y f o r
t h e
r e a s on s
g iv e n
in
b a i l
a p p li c a t i o n
o f
c o -a c c u s e d .
T h e
a p p li c a n t
h a s
n o
c ri m in a l
a n t e c e d e n t
a n d
t h e r e
is
n o
l i k e l i h o od
of
h e r
f le e in g
f r om
c o u r s e o f j u s t ic e o r t a m p e r i n g w it h
e v id e n c e i n c a s e o f r e le a s e o n b a i l.
H e n c e , b a i l h a s b e e n p r a ye d f o r.
( P a r a 3 )

C o n s i d e r i n g a l l a b o ve
fa c t s a n d
c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,
t h e
n a t u re
o f
a c c u s a t i o n s ,
s e ve r it y
o f
t h e
p u n i s h m e n t
i n
t h e
c a s e
o f
c o n vi c t i o n
a n d
n a t u r e
o f
s u p p o r t in g
e v id e n c e ,
r e a s o n a b le
a p p r e h e n s io n o f t a m p e r in g w it h t h e
w i t n e s s a n d p r im a fa c ie c a s e , b u t
w i t h ou t c om m e n t in g o n m e r it o f
c a s e , a c a s e f o r b a i l i s m a d e ou t .
( P a r a 5 )

B a i l a p p l ic a t i o n a l l o we d . (P e r s on a l
b o n d ,
s u r e t ie s
a n d
c on d it i on s
i m p o s e d ) (E -4 )

L i s t o f A c t s
B h a r a t i ya
N a g a r i k
S u ra ks h a
S a n h it a , 2 0 2 3 .

L i s t o f K e y w o r ds
C r im i n a l la w ; fr e e d om o f s p e e c h
a n d e x p r e s s i on ; f u n d a m e n t a l r ig h t ;
c o n s t it u t i o n ; s t r i n g e n t p u n is h m e n t ;
s o v e r e i g n t y;
u n it y ;
i n t e g r i t y;
c h a r g e s h e e t ; b a i l.

(Delivered by Hon 'ble Ashu tosh
S riv astav a, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar,
Advo cate, hold ing b rief o f Ms.
Swati
Ag rawal
S riv astav a,
learn ed
coun sel
for
th e
app lican t,
Shri
Yagy av alk
P and ey, learn ed AGA for th e
S tate-respond en ts
and
p eru sed
th e record .

2.
Th is
b ail
app lication
und er S ection 483 o f Bh aratiy a