# Smt. Gyanpati & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 649
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 11553 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-gyanpati-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52960
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

12 All. Smt. Gyanpati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
649
proceedings.
Hence,
petitioner
had
committed an unfair trade practice and was
therefore liable to return the said amount to
the respondents.

23. The petitioner then approached the
State Commission to contend that District
Commission had overlooked the fact of
possession and consolidation proceedings
as the possession is still with the petitioner
and it had come under consolidation
proceedings after launch of the project by
the petitioner which is a 'force majeure'
event
rendering
him
incapable
of
completing the project. State Commission
has dismissed the appeal by upholding the
order
of
the
District
Commission.
Subsequently, the National Commission
also dismissed the appeal on the ground of
absence of any substantial question of law.

24. The petitioner is here before this
Court and has again reiterated the same
ground that has already been taken by him
before the District Commission, State
Commission and National Commission
who have concurrently come to a finding
against the petitioner. The issue of the
knowledge of consolidation proceedings as
to from when they were being carried out
and the fact of possession of the land are
purely factual in nature and based on
disputed questions of fact which cannot be
gone into by us in writ jurisdiction. The
other pleas taken by the petitioner are also
not so cogent as to persuade us to interfere
with
the
findings
of
the
National
Commission. It is to be further noted that
till date, the petitioner has not given the
possession of the land to the respondents
who are the allotees of land.

25. The case of the petitioner does not
fall under any of the grounds mentioned
herein below:-

i) the writ petition has been filed
for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights;

ii) where there has been a
violation of the principle of natural justice;
or where the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of
an Act is challenged;

iii)
the
findings
of
the
Commission (District Commission, State
Commission, National Commission) are
perverse.

26. In fact, we are of the view that the
Commissions have rendered a finding that
is reasonable and cannot be termed as
perverse. Ergo, we come to an obdurate
finding that the petitioner has failed to
make out a case requiring interference of
orders passed by the three consumer
commissions.

27. In light of the above, the writ
petition is dismissed. Parties shall bear their
own costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 649
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 11553 of 2025

Smt. Gyanpati & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellate authority under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
has the power to review its own order.
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Ss. 176, 331(3), 341 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - R.
339 - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - S. 274 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 -
Proceedings relating to partition of agricultural
land - Suit under Section 176 for partition -
Preliminary decree fixing shares - Preparation
and confirmation of Kurra report - Appeal under
Section 331(3) dismissed - Review application
filed
before
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration) rejected on the ground of nonmaintainability - Challenge in writ jurisdiction -
Question relating to power of review vested in
revenue appellate authorities under the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act.

HELD:
Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, makes
the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure,
1908
applicable
to
the
proceedings under the Act and Rule 339
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules expressly
applies the provisions of Sections 256,
261, 273, 274 and other provisions of
the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 to the suits
and proceedings specified in Schedule
II and appeals, revisions and reviews
arising therefrom. Section 274 of the
U.P. Tenancy Act specifically provides
for the power of review and Order
XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is
applicable. Catena of judgments to indicate
that power of review is vested in the
authorities under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Appellate authority committed manifest error
in dismissing the review application of the
petitioner on the ground that the same was
not maintainable. Writ petition allowed.
Impugned order set aside and the matter
remitted to the
appellate authority to
consider and decide the application for
review in accordance with law.
[Paras 12, 13, 15, 16 & 17] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Hakim Ali v. Board of Revenue, 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 565;
Niyaz Ahmad v. Board of Revenue, U.P., 1978 LJ
(NOC) 25.
List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952;
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939;
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

List of Keyword
Power of review; Revenue appellate authority;
Section 341; Rule 339; Order XLVII CPC;
Partition proceedings; Kurra report; Manifest
error; Remand.

CASE ARISING FROM
From the order dated 19.08.2025 passed
on review application and the appellate
order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the
Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Rama Pati Shukla, Shreya
Shukla.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Mohan Singh,
Niteesh Kumar, Rajeev Narayan Pandey.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P. Shukla, Sri A.K.
Pandey,
and
Shreya
Shukla,
learned
counsel for petitioners as well as Sri
Upendra Singh, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel,
Sri
Dev
Prakash
Mishra,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri
Yogehs Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 11, Sri
Mohan
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No. 112 and Sri Anup Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 9 & 10 and Sri Rajeev Narayan
Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.
2.

2. In the present writ petition, the
petitioner has assailed the validity of the
order dated 19.08.2025 passed on a review
application
as
well
as
order
dated
18.07.2025
passed
by
Additional
12 All. Smt. Gyanpati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya
Division, Ayodhya.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that the dispute in the
present case pertains to the proceedings
initiated U/S 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
with regard to the partition of land situated
at Kata No. 237 Gata No. 253 and 432K as
well as Khata No. 238 Gata No. 325. It has
been submitted that the aforesaid land was
recorded in the name of Mewa Lal who had
four sons, namely, Tilak Ram, Ichha Ram,
Atma Ram and Balram and Atma Ram had
filed an application for partition claiming
1/4th share for himself and according to
him the remaining 3 brothers also had 1/4th
share in the said property.

4. It has been submitted that a
settlement had taken place between the
parties and all of them were in possession
of their respective shares. It is stated that
the aforesaid partition was oral and
accordingly in order to effect a formal
partition the suit was filed by Atma Ram
U/S 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said
suit was initially dismissed in default but
subsequently a restoration application was
filed and the said application was allowed
and the suit was restored by means of order
dated 10.07.2008.

5. The trial court decided the matter by
means of judgment dated 03.03.2010 and
the shares of all the sons of Mewa Lal were
fixed at 1/4th share and directions were
issued for preparation of a final decree.
Subsequently the Kurra reports were
prepared but the petitioners had aggrieved
with the Kurra reports as they were never
given opportunity of hearing and moved an
application on 22.06.2015 to go through the
Kurra report and also to file his objections.
It is stated that his application remained
pending and a final order was passed on
30.01.2016 confirming the Kurra report
dated 11.02.2015.

6. While passing the final orders, the
trial court held that the despite giving
several opportunities no objections were
filed in the Kurra report and accordingly
proceeded to confirm the said report. The
petitioners had filed an appeal U/S 331(3)
of the Act of 1950 before the Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya
which was rejected by means of order dated
18.07.2025. The Appellate Court had
recorded that several opportunities were
granted before preparation of kurra but no
objections were filed and as the grounds
raised by the petitioners in appeal were not
taken before the court below he did not
think it proper to deal with the said issues
and rejected the appeal preferred by the
petitioner.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances
that the petitioner had filed an application
for review of the judgment and order dated
18.07.2025 which has been rejected by
means of order dated 19.08.2025 holding
that the review is not maintainable.

8. With regard to the maintainability
of the review application, it has been
submitted by learned counsel of petitioners
that as per provisions of Section 341 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 had been made
expressly applicable to all the proceedings
under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

9. He has further submitted that as per
Rule 339 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
provisions of Sections 256, 261, 273, 274,
277 to 282 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939
have been made applicable to the suits and
proceedings specified in Section (ii) of the
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act and appeal, revision and review arisen
therefrom. He has further submitted that the
dispute pertaining to partition has also been
specifically mentioned in Schedule 2 to the
said Act. He further relies upon the
provisions of Section 274 of the U,P.
Tenancy Act, 1939 to submit that even the
Act of 1939 provided for review by the
other courts and therefore in any view of
the matter there is no doubt that the
appellate
authority
i.e.
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration)
had
committed manifest error by rejecting the
application for review only on account of
the fact that such power was not vested in
him.

10. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand has opposed the writ petition but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

11. I have heard contentions of rival
parties and perused the record.

12. The only question which is
engaging the contention of this Court is
with regard to power of review by the
appellate authority under the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act. The relevant provisions which are
necessary for adjudication of the said case
are quoted hereinbelow:-

"341. Application of certain Acts
to the proceeding of this Act.

- Unless otherwise expressly
provided by or under this Act, the
provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act,
1870 (VII of 1870), the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), and the
[Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963)]
[Substituted by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1965.],
[including Section 5 thereof] [Inserted by
U.P. Act No. 37 of 1958.] shall apply to the
proceedings under this Act.

Rule 339 of U.P.Z.A and L.R
Rules runs as follows:-

"339.(1)
Unless
otherwise
expressly provided by or under the Act the
provisions of Sections 256, 261, 273, 274,
277 to 282 of the U.P Tenancy Act, 1939
shall apply to the suits and proceedings
specified in Schedule II of the Act and
appeals, revisions and reviews arising
therefrom.

(2) In respect of the suits or
proceedings mentioned in sub-rule (1) the
first appeal shall lie within thirty days of
the date of the decree or order appealed
against and the second appeal, if any, shall
lie within ninety days of the date of the
decree or order passed by the court of first
appeal."

Sec 274 of U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939-

274. Review by other Courts

"Every other Court shall be
competent to review its judgment in
accordance with the provisions of the Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
1908,
and
the
provisions of Order XLVII of the said Code
shall apply to any such review"

13. A reading of the aforesaid
statutory provisions indicate that Section
274 specifically provides for the power of
review and at the time when U.P.Z. A. &
L.R. Act was enacted provisions of U.P.
Tenancy Act were repealed but certain
provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act were saved
by under Rule 339 of U.P.Z. A. & L.R.
Rules, 1952 which were expressly made
applicable including provisions of Section
274 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Apart
from which Section 341 had already made
Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the
proceedings under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act."
12 All. Smt. Gyanpati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653

14. Needless to say that order 47 Rule
1 of the CPC was already made applicable
by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. This aspect of
the matter was duly considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hakim Ali Vs. Board of Revenue, 1991
Supp(1) SCC 565, which had observed as
under:-

"5. By Section 293 of the
Zamindari Abolition Act the provisions of
Chapters IX and X of the Land Revenue Act
have been made applicable to applications
in proceedings under the Zamindari
Abolition Act. The said provision which is
contained in Chapter X of the Zamindari
Abolition Act provides as under:

"293. Provisions of Act 3 of 1901
applied to applications and proceedings
under this chapter.? The provisions of
Chapters IX and X of the United Provinces
Land Revenue Act, 1901, as amended by
this Act shall, insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,
apply to applications and proceedings
made or taken under this chapter."

6. Section 339, which makes
provision for repeals, is as follows:

"339. Repeals.- With effect from
the date of vesting in respect of any area-

(a) the enactments mentioned in
List I of Schedule III shall be and are
hereby repealed in their application to such
area;

(b) so much of any other
enactments as is inconsistent with the
provisions of Chapters VIII to X of this Act
shall be deemed and is hereby repealed in
its application to such area;

(c) the United Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act 3 of 1901),
shall in its application to such area be
deemed to be and is hereby amended to the
extent mentioned in column 3 of the List II
of the Schedule aforesaid:

Provided that where under this
Act any interpretation has to be made,
action taken or thing done in accordance
with the provisions of the United Provinces
Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act 17 of 1939),
the same may be made, taken or done as if
it has not been repealed by this Act."

9. It is no doubt true that under
Section 293 of the Zamindari Abolition Act,
the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the
Land Revenue Act have been made
applicable
only
to
applications
and
proceedings made or taken under Chapter
X of the Zamindari Abolition Act and since
Section 203 falls in Chapter IX of the Land
Revenue Act, it would not be applicable to
proceedings
made
or
taken
under
provisions other than those contained in
Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition Act.
In our view, however, Section 293 cannot
be read in isolation. It has to be read along
with Section 339. In clause (c) of Section
339 it is prescribed that with effect from the
date of vesting in respect of any area, the
Land Revenue Act shall, in its application
to such area, be deemed to be and is hereby
amended to the extent mentioned in column
3 of the List II of Schedule III of the said
Act. As a result the provisions of the Land
Revenue Act containing the amendments as
mentioned in column 3 of List II of
Schedule III, would be applicable to the
area to which the Act has been made
applicable with effect from the date of
vesting. Under column 3 of List II of
Schedule III certain modifications and
amendments have been made in the various
provisions of the Land Revenue Act, but no
modification has been made in Section 203
of the said Act. This would mean that the
provisions of the Land Revenue Act,
including Section 203, are applicable to the
area in which the Zamindari Abolition Act
has been applied with effect from the date
of vesting.
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. This distinction based on the
difference in terminology used in Sections
293 and 339(c) does not, in our view,
advance the case of the appellants. It only
indicates that Section 293 is limited in its
scope in applying the provisions of
Chapters IX and X of the Land Revenue Act
to applications and proceedings under
Chapter X of the Zamindari Abolition Act
whereas Section 339(c) is much wider in
amplitude inasmuch as it makes all the
provisions of the Land Revenue Act
applicable to the area to which the
provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act
are applied. The Land Revenue Act
contains
provisions
relating
to
appointments and jurisdiction of revenue
officers, maintenance of maps and records
and
appointment
of
Kanungos
and
Lekhpals for that purpose, revision of maps
and records, settlement of the revenue,
revision of assessment, partition and union
of Mahals, collection of revenue, procedure
of Revenue Courts and Revenue Officers,
appeals reference and revision, etc. As a
result of the application of the provisions of
the Land Revenue Act, as amended to the
extent mentioned in column 3 of List II of
the Schedule to the Zamindari Abolition
Act, to the area to which the provisions of
the Zamindari Abolition Act are applied,
all the various provisions of the Land
Revenue Act would be applicable to all the
matters dealt with by the Zamindari
Abolition Act including applications and
proceedings under the said Act. The width
and amplitude of the said provision
contained
in
Section
339(c)
of
the
Zamindari Abolition Act cannot, in our
opinion, be curtailed by reference to
Sections 293 and 341 of the said Act."

15. This Court further finds that the
scope of review under the aforesaid
provisions was also considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Niyaz Ahmad Vs. Board of Revenue,
U.P. Allahabd, 1978 LJ (NOC) 25) 11,
relevant portion quoted as under:

"16. Therefore, our conclusion is
that the provisions of section 341 of U.P.
Act 1 of 1951 read with Rule 339 of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Rules and section 273 of the U.P.
Tenancy Act lead to only one inference,
namely, that the requirement of law is that
the Board should exercise its power of
review in conformity with the guidelines
furnished by Order 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure."

16. Accordingly, the aforesaid dispute
is no longer res integra and there are catena
of judgments to indicate that power of
review vested in the authorities under the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore, the
appellate authority has committed manifest
error in dismissing the review application
of the petitioner on the ground that the
same was not maintainable.

17. In light of the above, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 19.08.2025 is set aside. The matter is
remitted to respondent No. 1 to consider
and decide the application for review
preferred by the petitioner in accordance
with law. He is also directed to decide the
same within a period of two months from
the date a certified copy of this order is
produced before him.

18. It is made clear that this Court has
not consider the prayer of the petitioners
for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2025
inasmuch as that is. the order the review of
which would now be pending before the
appellate authority.
----------
12 All. Omkar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
(2025) 12 ILRA 655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 11631 of 2025

Omkar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mudit Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., Abhishek Mishra, Anurag Kumar
Singh, Sajjad Husain, Syed Aftab Aftab
Ahmad

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the District Judge deciding an
election petition under the U. P. Municipalities
Act, 1916 is a Court or a tribunal/persona
designata; and
(ii) Whether the delay in filing an Election
Petition under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916
can be condoned under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - U. P.
Municipalities Act, 1916 - Ss. 20, 22 & 23 -
Limitation Act, 1963 - Ss. 5, 12(2) & 29(2) -
Election
petition
challenging
election
of
Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat - Statutory
limitation of 30 days - Application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
- Preliminary issue of limitation - Question
whether District Judge deciding an election
petition acts as a Court or persona designata -
Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to
election petitions under the Municipalities Act -
Effect of express application of Section 12(2)
and exclusion of other provisions - Sustainability
of orders condoning delay and allowing election
petition.
HELD:
Whether the District Judge deciding an
election petition is a Court or not. It was
held that District Judge, while deciding an
election petition, acts as a Court and not
as
a
tribunal or
persona
designata.
Municipalities Act originally provided for
filing the election petition before the
'Court',
but
the
word
'Court'
was
substituted by the phrase 'District Judge'.
As per Section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and
Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the District
Judge is a Civil Court. While deciding an
election petition, the District Judge has all
the powers of a Civil Court. Section 23 of
the Municipalities Act provides that while
deciding an election petition the District
Judge shall follow the procedure provided
in the Civil Procedure Code in regard to
suits, so far as it is not inconsistent with
the Act.
Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act not
apply to an election petition filed under Section
20 of the Municipalities Act. The impugned order
dated 04.11.2025, passed by the learned
Additional
District
Judge,
allowing
the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
unsustainable in law and the same was set
aside. Election petition being barred by the
limitation
period
was
liable
to
be
dismissed.[Para 23, 29, 39] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh
and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 786;
Abdul Ghafoor and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR
2012 SC 640;
K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC
285;
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra,
(1974) 2 SCC 133;
Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harish, (1976) 1
SCC 897;
Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal, (1999) 8
SCC 532;
Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi, (2018) 9 SCC 808;
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad,
2024 SCC OnLine All 4203;
Sharda Devi Dinesh Chaudhary v. State of U.P.,
2012 SCC OnLine All 4160;
Jay Prakash and Another v. Anjula Singh Mathur
and Another, 2024 (3) All LJ 794;
Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Others, (2021) 4
AWC 4008;