# Tarawati & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-10
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tarawati-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52850
- **Pages:** 53

## Headnote

C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Kunwar Ravi
Prakash, Umesh Kumar Tiwari, Yogendra
Nath Yadav

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the petitioners could get any benefit
of the order dated 30.03.1966 passed by the
Forest Settlement Officer; (ii) Whether the entry
in revenue records of land in issue i.e. Gata/Plot
No. 1176Ba (now 1209) of 1359 Fasli (C.E.
1952), according to which Gulab Chand was
'Sirdar' of this land, is genuine; and (iii) Whether
the petitioners are entitled to any relief based
upon the 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)' dated
26.03.1958.

HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Ss. 9A(2), 49 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - S.20(b) - U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P. Act No. X of 1953) -
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Writ petitions
challenging orders of Consolidation Officer dated
13.01.1994, Settlement Officer of Consolidation
dated 07.06.2003 and Deputy Director of
Consolidation dated 25.02.2005 - Claim of
petitioners based on alleged donation of land by
Gulab Chand to Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and
execution of 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373
dated 26.03.1958 - Petitioners also relying upon
order dated 30.03.1966 passed by Forest
Settlement Officer
- Consolidation Officer
rejected objections and maintained entry of land
as Banjar/Gaon Sabha - Appeals dismissed by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation - Revisions
dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation
HELD:
Land recorded as Usar, Banjar and Talab in
earlier revenue records - Entry in the revenue
records of 1359 Fasli (C.E. 1952) in favour of
Gulab Chand showing him as 'Sirdar' of
Gata/Plot No. 1176Ba (now 1209) was held to
be not genuine and was found to be bogus,
forged,
fictitious,
fabricated
and
made
surreptitiously to usurp/grab State land - No
document was placed on record to establish that
prior revenue entries recorded the name of
Gulab Chand and petitioners failed to establish
that the entry was made after following the
procedure prescribed under law - No right could
be claimed or sustained on the basis of such
entry - Application of maxims 'Nemo Dat Quod
Non Habet' and 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit
Opus' reiterated. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet',
means 'no one can give what they do not have'
and in other words, 'no man convey a better
title than what he has'. (ii) 'Sublato Fundamento
Cadit Opus', means 'the foundation being
removed, the structure falls.' Applying the
maxims Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet and Sublato
Fundamento Cadit Opus, no right could flow
from a void foundation and no better title could
be conveyed than what the donor possessed -
Petitioners were held not entitled to any relief
based upon 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'
dated 26.03.1958 as the grants were not in the
spirit of Bhoodan Yagna Movement and were
contrary to the aims and objects of the U.P. Act
No. X of 1953, which was enacted to provide
land
to
'landless
agricultural
labourers/Bhoomihin Ki

## Text

_Characters 0–39,943 of 174,550. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39943 for what follows._

372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recruitment process remained defective,
therefore, it was not a fair selection as well
as that petitioners have no absolute right
that such a defective recruitment process be
concluded.

19. Court also takes note that while
taking a decision not to continue with
earlier recruitment process, an opportunity
was granted to petitioners to participate in
fresh selection process and age relaxation
was also granted, however, it is not on
record
whether
petitioners
have
participated or not, though a specific
opportunity was granted.

20. In case petitioners have not
participated in fresh selection process, they
have acted contrary to their own interest
and Court cannot come forward to help
them in such scenario. There is no element
of malafide in the action of the respondent
rather it was a bonafide action on basis of
material and inquiry.

21. The judgment relied upon by
learned Advocates for petitioners would not
be
helpful
to
their
case
as
it
is
distinguishable on facts whereas law
discussed in State of Assam vs. Arabinda
Rabha (supra) is squarely applicable being
against the petitioners. Vice Chancellor has
conducted the recruitment process where he
was going to retire in 3 months was an
additional reason for above decision.

22. In view of above, prayer sought in
present bunch of writ petitions cannot be
allowed, hence, they are rejected.

23. In overall circumstances, all writ
petitions are dismissed.

24. Recruitment process was found
faulty and fresh recruitment process was
concluded, therefore, interim orders passed
in all writ petitions are accordingly vacated.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 372
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ B No. 42 of 2015 connected cases

Tarawati & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jagdish Prasad Maurya, Bajrangi lal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Kunwar Ravi
Prakash, Umesh Kumar Tiwari, Yogendra
Nath Yadav

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the petitioners could get any benefit
of the order dated 30.03.1966 passed by the
Forest Settlement Officer; (ii) Whether the entry
in revenue records of land in issue i.e. Gata/Plot
No. 1176Ba (now 1209) of 1359 Fasli (C.E.
1952), according to which Gulab Chand was
'Sirdar' of this land, is genuine; and (iii) Whether
the petitioners are entitled to any relief based
upon the 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)' dated
26.03.1958.

HEADNOTE
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Ss. 9A(2), 49 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - S.20(b) - U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P. Act No. X of 1953) -
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Writ petitions
challenging orders of Consolidation Officer dated
13.01.1994, Settlement Officer of Consolidation
dated 07.06.2003 and Deputy Director of
Consolidation dated 25.02.2005 - Claim of
petitioners based on alleged donation of land by
Gulab Chand to Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and
execution of 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373
dated 26.03.1958 - Petitioners also relying upon
order dated 30.03.1966 passed by Forest
Settlement Officer
- Consolidation Officer
rejected objections and maintained entry of land
as Banjar/Gaon Sabha - Appeals dismissed by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation - Revisions
dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation
HELD:
Land recorded as Usar, Banjar and Talab in
earlier revenue records - Entry in the revenue
records of 1359 Fasli (C.E. 1952) in favour of
Gulab Chand showing him as 'Sirdar' of
Gata/Plot No. 1176Ba (now 1209) was held to
be not genuine and was found to be bogus,
forged,
fictitious,
fabricated
and
made
surreptitiously to usurp/grab State land - No
document was placed on record to establish that
prior revenue entries recorded the name of
Gulab Chand and petitioners failed to establish
that the entry was made after following the
procedure prescribed under law - No right could
be claimed or sustained on the basis of such
entry - Application of maxims 'Nemo Dat Quod
Non Habet' and 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit
Opus' reiterated. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet',
means 'no one can give what they do not have'
and in other words, 'no man convey a better
title than what he has'. (ii) 'Sublato Fundamento
Cadit Opus', means 'the foundation being
removed, the structure falls.' Applying the
maxims Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet and Sublato
Fundamento Cadit Opus, no right could flow
from a void foundation and no better title could
be conveyed than what the donor possessed -
Petitioners were held not entitled to any relief
based upon 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'
dated 26.03.1958 as the grants were not in the
spirit of Bhoodan Yagna Movement and were
contrary to the aims and objects of the U.P. Act
No. X of 1953, which was enacted to provide
land
to
'landless
agricultural
labourers/Bhoomihin Kissan' - Grants in favour
of minors or persons not even born on the date
of execution were held to be void-ab-initio. In
light of the aims and objects of the U.P. Act No.
X of 1953, a minor cannot be placed within the
expression
"landless
agricultural
labourers/Bhoomihin Kissan/Tiller", nor can a
minor be considered a person bedded to the
soil, having attachment with the soil or
knowledge about the soil. - Petitioners could
not get any benefit of the order dated
30.03.1966 passed by the Forest Settlement
Officer as the said order was based upon
possession and no finding was recorded either
on the genuineness of the entry in revenue
records of 1359 Fasli or with regard to
genuineness of 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'
dated 26.03.1958, and necessary parties i.e.
Gaon Sabha, State and Bhoodan Samiti were
not heard - Impugned orders passed by
Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of
Consolidation
and
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation were found to be legal and
justified - No interference warranted - All writ
petitions dismissed. [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Bachan v. Kankar, (1972) 2 SCC 555;
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, U.P. v. Braj Kishore,
(1988) 4 SCC 274;
Mohd. Ramzan Khan v. D.D.C., Allahabad, 2009
SCC OnLine All 1111;
Gujj Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation,
Firozabad, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8063;
Bhagwati Deen v. Sheetladin, 2022 (156) RD
602;
ESI Corpn. v. Key Dee Cold Storage (P) Ltd.,
(2022) 17 SCC 379;
B.R. Nangia v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All
1013;
Sayeed Abbas v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine
All 3938

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P. Act No. X of
1953);
Indian Forest Act, 1927.

List of Keyword
Bhoodan Lekh; Gift Deed; Bhoodan Yagna
Movement;
Landless
agricultural
labourer;
Minor; Void-ab-initio grant; Revenue entry;
Bogus and fabricated entry; Banjar land; Gaon
Sabha; Forest Settlement Officer; Consolidation
proceedings; Nemo dat quod non habet;
Sublato fundamento cadit opus.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the orders dated 13.01.1994 passed
by the Consolidation Officer, Malihabad,
Lucknow;
07.06.2003
passed
by
the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation; and
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25.02.2005 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Lucknow.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Jagdish Prasad Maurya,
Bajrangi Lal Mishra, Nirmal Tewari, Manish
Singh, S.Faisal A. Husain, Devi Prasad Maurya,
R.N. Shukla, S.P. Singh Somvanshi, Anwar
Husain, Dileep Kumar Tripathi.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Dilip Kumar
Pandey, R.N. Gupta, Kunwar Ravi Prakash,
Umesh Kumar Tiwari, Yogendra Nath Yadav.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. For the convenience of exposition,
this judgment is divided into the following
parts:-

INDEX

A.
FACTS
OF
THE
CASE....................PAGE Nos.4 to 12

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITIONER(S)........................
.......PAGE Nos.12 to 19.

C. SUBMISSIONS OF THE
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

STATE....................................
...........PAGE Nos.19 to 32.

D. POINT(S)/ISSUE(S) FOR
DETERMINATION........PAGE No.32

E.
DECISION
ON
POINT/ISSUE
NO.1................PAGE
Nos.32 to 35

F.
DECISION
ON
POINT/ISSUE
NO.2................PAGE
Nos.35 to 44

G.
DECISION
ON
POINT/ISSUE
NO.3...............PAGE
Nos.44 to 68

H.
CONCLUSION.......................PAGE
No. 68

A. FACTS OF THE CASE-

2. Heard Shri Manish Singh, Shri
Bajrangi Lal Mishra and Shri S.P. Singh
Somvanshi, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar
Pandey, learned State Counsel.

3. Before proceeding further in the
matter, it would be apt to indicate the
following facts:-

(i) In all the petitions, indicated above,
the arguments were heard and judgment
was reserved on 16.05.2025 and thereafter
on 26.08.2025 this Court passed the
following order:-

At the time of dictating the
judgment, which was reserved in the Court,
this
Court
found
that
further
submissions/arguments are required on
some issues. Accordingly, let the instant
case alongwith other connected matters be
listed
on
29.08.2025
for
further
submissions/arguments."

(ii) In terms of the aforesaid order
dated 16.05.2025, all the petitions were
listed before this Court and thereafter the
learned counsel for the parties were heard
and
the
judgment
was
reserved
on
10.09.2025.

4. In all the petitions, indicated above,
the order dated 13.01.1994 passed by the
Consolidation
Officer,
Malihabad,
Lucknow (in short 'C.O.'), the order dated
07.06.2003 passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation (in short 'S.O.C.')
and the order dated 25.02.2005 passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Lucknow (in short 'D.D.C.') have been
challenged. Therefore, all the petitions are
being decided by this order.
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375

5. From the record as also the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it is apparent that
the case/claim of the petitioners in all the
petitions, indicated above, is based upon
the following facts:-

(i) In the 1359 Fasli (C.E. 1952)
as also in 'Basic Year' Khatauni i.e. 1360
Fasli (C.E. 1953) the name of one Gulab
Chand was recorded as 'Sirdar' in the
revenue records related to Gata/Plot No.
1176Ba (Now 1209) situated at Village -
Jabrauli, Pargana - Nigoha, TehsilMohanlalganj, District - Lucknow.

(ii) The Gulab Chand donated the
entire land of Gata/Plot No. 1176Ba (Now
1209) i.e. 109 Bigha and 09 Biswa to
'Bhoodan Yagna Samiti' (in short 'Bhoodan
Samiti') constituted in terms of the U.P.
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (in short "U.P.
Act No. X of 1953"), which came into force
on 27.02.1953.

(iii)
The
Bhoodan
Samiti
thereafter executed 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift
Deed(s)' on 26.03.1958 in favour of Smt.
Kamla Rani, Suresh Chandra, Pramod
Kumar Mishra, Radhey Lal, Balwant Singh
(father of petitioner-Sandeep Singh), Ram
Sagar, Algoo Ram and Ram Sumer
(predecessor in interest of petitionerTarawati) and Babu Lal.

(iv) For eviction from the land in
issue the proceedings in terms of Rule 115D of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 (in short
'Rules of 1952') framed under the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950')
were initiated and thereafter, the suit(s) for
declaration of rights over the land in issue
were filed and these suits were abated on
account of publication of notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1953. This fact is
evident from the order dated 08.10.1980
passed by the S.D.O., Mohanlalganj,
Lucknow.

(v) Prior to initiation of the
proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953, (in short 'Act of
1953'),
the
proceedings
under
the
provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in
short 'Act of 1927') were initiated where
the cases of the petitioners or their
predecessor-in-interest were considered
and the Forest Settlement Officer (in
short 'F.S.O.') found that concerned were
in possession in terms of 'Bhoodan
Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)' dated 26.03.1958
executed under the U.P. Act No. X of
1953 and therefore declined to interfere
in their possession vide order dated
30.03.1966. In other words, the F.S.O.
decided the proceedings vide order order
dated 30.03.1966 in favour of persons
who were in possession of the land in
terms of 'Bhoodan Lekh(s)/Gift Deed(s)'
dated 26.03.1958 executed by Bhoodan
Samiti.

6.
Vide
impugned
order
dated
13.01.1994, the C.O. in exercise of power
under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953
had decided the following cases :-

(i) Case No. 814/16/512/719;

(ii) Case No.809/1/795;

(iii) Case No.810/12/796;

(iv) Case No.811/13/797;

(v) Case No.812/14/798;

(vi) Case No.813/15/799;

(vii)
Case
No.76/807+800/800+801;

(viii) Case No.73/808/802+803.

7. The relevant portion of the order
dated 13.01.1994 passed by the C.O. is
extracted herein under :-

"ग्राम जबरौली परगिा निगोहा
तह ील मोहिलालगिंज िी आधार पर खतौिी
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िे खाता िंख्या 831 में अिंकित आराजी 1209
 िंगठि 70 बीघा ततरह त्रब वा 11 धुर बिंजर
(गािंव भा) िा इिंराज यथावत अिंकित रखा
जाये । आराजी ि० 1209/12 दो बीघा पन्र
त्रब वा े वाददिी श्रीमती िमलारािी पत्िी
छववराज िा िब्जा व उ िी आपवत्त खाररज हो
गाटा िंख्या 1209/10 एि बीघा आठ त्रब वा े
 ुरेश चन्र पुत्र िुबेर िा िब्जा, गाटा िंख्या
1209/8 ात बीघा त्तरह त्रब वा े वादी
रामिुबेर पुत्र ाधव िा िब्जा, गाआ िंख्या
1209/16 तीि बीघा 10 त्रब वा े वादी
राम ागर पुत्र रामदा िा िब्जा, गाटा िंख्या
1209/13 द बीघा े राम ुमेर पुत्र ाधव िा
िब्जा, गाटा िंख्या 1209/14 चौदह त्रब वा े
वादी बलवन्त स िंह पुत्र यदुिाथ स िंह िा िब्जा,
गाटा िंख्या 1209/18 समिजुमला 10 बीघा
पन्रह त्रब वा 10 ववश्वा ी े राधेलाल पुत्र
महावीर िा िब्जा एविं गाटा िंख्या 1209/17
द बीघा पन्रह त्रब वा 10 धुर े वादी
बाबूलाल पुत्र द्वाररिा िा िब्जा एविं भी
वादीगणों िी आपवत्तयािं निरस्त हों यह आदेश
वाद पत्रावली िंख्या 809/1/795 ुरेशचन्र
बिाम गािंव भा, वाद िंख्या 810/12/796 राम
िुबेर बिाम गािंव भा, 811/13/797 राम ागर
बिाम गािंव भा 812/14/798 राम ुमेर बिाम
गािंव भा, 813/15/799 बलवन्त स िंह व प्रमोद
स िंह
बिाम
गािंव
 भा
वाद
 िंख्या
76/807+800/800+801 राधेलाल बिाम गािंव
 भा तथा वाद िंख्या 73/808/802 + 803 बाबू
लाल बिाम गािंव भा एविं प्रमोद िुमार बिाम
गािंव भा पर भी लागू होगा।

वाद अमल बरामद पत्रावली दाणखल
दफतर हो"

8. Being aggrieved by the order dated
13.01.1994 passed by the C.O., the
following appeals were filed:-

(i)
Appeal
No.
1690/1420/1183/1256
(Kamlarani
vs.
Gaonsabha)

(ii) Appeal No. 1119/2037/1255
(Balwant Singh vs. Gaonsabha)

(iii) Appeal No. 1116/2036/1254
(Radheylal vs. Gaonsabha)

(iv) Appeal No. 1112/2035/1253
(Ramsagar vs. Gaonsabha)

(v) Appeal No. 1118/2034/1252
(Babulal vs. Gaonsabha)

(vi) Appeal No. 1113/2033/1251
(Ramsumer vs. Gaonsabha)

(vii)
Appeal
No.
1114/1691
(Suresh Chandra vs. Gaonsabha)

(viii)
Appeal
No.
1115/249
(Ramkuber vs. Gaonsabha)

9. The above indicated appeals were
decided/dismissed by the S.O.C. vide
impugned order dated 07.06.2003. The
relevant portion of the order dated
07.06.2003 reads as under :-

मैिे
उभय
पक्षों
िे
ववद्वाि
अगधवक्ताओिं िी बह िो ववस्तार पूवाि ुिा
तथा अपीलािंटगण तथा उत्तरवादी द्वारा अवर
न्यायालय में दाणखल किये गये सलणखत एिंव
मौणखि ाक्ष्यों िा भलीभािंनत अवलोिि एविं
परीक्षण किया ाथ ही अवर न्यायालय िे
आदेश िा अवलोिि एविं परीक्षण किया।
अपीलें अपीलािंट िी अिुपजस्थनत में निरस्त िर
दी गयी थी जजििे ववरुद्ध अपीलािंट गण द्वारा
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377
पुिास्थापि प्राथािा पत्र प्रस्तुत किये गये जो
स्वीिार किये गये तथा अपीलें पुिास्थावपत िी
गई। बलबन्त अपीलािंट िी मृत्यु हो गयी है
जजििे बारर ददलीप िुमार स िंह पुिास्थावपत
किये जा चुिे है।

वाद िे निस्तारण हेतु 10 वादत्रबन्दु
बिाये गये। चिबन्दी अगधिारी िे वादत्रबन्दु
बार पूणा वववेचिा िरते हुये आदेश ददिााँि 131-94 पाररत किया है। ाथ ही अवर न्यायालय
में पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये सलणखत एविं
मौणखि ाक्ष्यों िी पूणा वववेचिा अपिे आदेश
में िी है। पत्रावली िे अवलोिि े ववददत है कि
अपीलाथी गण िे िागजी ाक्ष्य में एफ०
एफ०ए ०ओ/ए ०िी०ओ
मोहिलाल
गिंज
द्वारा पाररत आदेश ददिााँि 30-3-66, स िंचाई
िी र ीदें आदद तथा भूदाि समनत िे िंयोजि
द्वारा प्रदत्त दाि लेख प्रस्तुत किया है। श्रीमती
िमलारािी िे िागजी ाक्ष्य बाद अबेटमेन्ट
िा आदेश िी त्य प्रनतसलवप प्रस्तुत किया है।
जज े स्पष्ट है कि वतामाि चिबन्दी प्रकक्रयाएिं
प्रारम्भ होिे िे पूवा आपवत्तिताा िे धारा 229 बी
जमीिंदारी
वविाश
अगध०
िे
अन्तगात
घोर्णात्मि वाद न्यायालय परगिागधिारी
तह ील मोहिलालगिंज में दायर िर रखा था।
भूदाि समनत द्वारा जारी दाि लेख, ददिााँि
26-3-1958 िे देखिे े ववददत है कि आपवत्त/
अपीलिताा िे हि में गाटा 1176ब/2 में 5 एििीी़
भूसम िा दािलेख सलखा गया था। पत्रावली पर
ििल खतौिी 1362फ० एविं 1359फ० दाणखल
िी गयी है जज में गाटा िंख्या-1176 व क्षेत्रफल
109 बीघा 9 त्रबस्वा गुलाबचन्र पुत्र लाला
अयोध्यािाथ खत्री निवा ी मौरािंवा िे िाम
अिंकित था। पुरािी चिबन्दी में तैयार जोत
चिबन्दी आिार पत्र 23 िी ििल बावत खाता
 िंख्या-55 दाणखल िी गयी है जज में ात्रबि
गाटा 1176/3 रिबा 105 बीघा 17 ववस्वा 11
ववस्वािं ी गुलाबचन्र िे िाम े खाररज होिर
गािंव भा िे िाम अिंकित िरिे िा आदेश
तह ीलदार
मोहिलालज,
वाद
 िंख्या-32
अिंतगात धारा 186/187 ददिााँि 3-1-1959
पाररतिं किया गया था। जज िा अमलदरामद
ददिााँि 1-3-59 िो लेखपाल द्वारा किया गया।
अवर न्यायालय िी पत्रावली व च०अ०िे आदेश
िे अवलोिि े स्पष्ट है कि वादग्रस्त भूसम
गाटा िंख्या-1209 जो ात्रबि गाटा 1176 े
बिा है, िा दाि भूदाि समनत िही किया गया
और ि िभी भूदाि समनत िे िाम भूसम
अिंकित रही है। इ प्रिार जब वाद वादग्रस्त
ग्रस्त भूसम भूदाि समनत िी होिा स द्ध ही
िहीिं है तो इ वववाददत आराजी िे िंबिंध में
भूदाि समनत िे िंयोजि द्वारा ददया गया
दाि लेख भी निराधार/आधारहीि हो जाता है।
इ प्रिार इ दाि पत्र िे आधार पर अपीलािंट
िो िोई स्वजम्ब प्राप्त िही होते है। और िही
उििा दावा स द्ध होता है। पत्रावली िे
अवलोिि े यह भी स्पष्ट है कि वववाददत
भूसम 1208 रिबा 70 बीघा 17 ववस्वा 11
ववस्वािं ी चिबन्दी बन्दोबस्त जो०च०आिार
पत्र 45 िे खाता िंख्या-818 में श्रेणी-5 में बिंजर
दीगर में अिंकित है। अपीलािंट िा यह िथि कि
पुरािी चिबन्दी में तह ीलदार द्वारा धारा
186/187 िे अन्तागत गाटा 1176 गााँव भा िे
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िाम अिंकित िरिे िा आदेश किया गया था जो
निदहत प्रकक्रया िा पालि ि िरिे पाररत हुआ
है। पत्रावली े स्पष्ट है कि आिार पत्र 23 िी
ििल जो वपछली चिबन्दी पर अिंकित आदेश
तह ीलदार ददिािंि3-1-59 है, उ े ववददत है
कि तह ीलदार िे जो धारा 186/187 में आदेश
पाररत किया है, वह इ िे क्षम अगधिारी थे।
इ प्रिार गुलाबचन्र पुत्र अयोध्यािाथ खत्री
उक्त आदेश िो नियमतः चुिौती दे िते थे
जो उन्होंिे िहीिं किया तह ीलदार िा ओदश
ददिााँि 3-1-59 अिंकित हो गया और उ िे
आधार पर वववाददत भूसम गाटा 1209 बिंजर गााँव
 भा िे िाम अिंकित हो गयी। पत्रावली िे
अवलोिि े यह भी ववददत है कि वववाददत
गाटा 1209 या उ िा ात्रबि गाटा 1176 िभी
भी भूदाि समनत िा होिा िही स द्ध होता है।
अपीलािंट गण द्वारा पत्रावली में ऐ ा िोई
 ाक्ष्य प्रस्तुत िहीिं किया गया है जज े यह
स्पष्ट हो कि वववाददत गाटा िभी भी भूदाि
 समनत िी आराजी रही हो या ात्रबत गाटा
1176 रिवा 109 बीघा 9 ववस्वा जो 1359फ० व
1362फ0 में गुलाबचन्र पुत्र अयोध्यािाथ खत्री
निवा ी मौरािंवा िे िाम वगा-2 अिंकित था यह
भी स्पष्ट है कि गुलाबचन्र िे िभी िोई
दािलेखा भूदाि समनत िे पक्ष में निष्पाददत
किया था। पत्रावली िे अवलोिि े यह भी
स्पष्ट है कि वववाददत भूसम िभी भी भूदाि
 समनत िे िाम ि तो रही है और ि ही भूदाि
लेख ही नियमािु ार किया जािा स द्ध होता
है। जहााँ ति अपीलािंट बाबूलाल, राधेलाल व
बलवन्त िी अपील िा प्रश्ि है। पत्रावली पर
उपलब्ध असभलेखीय ाक्ष्य े स्पष्ट है कि
उक्त व्यजक्तयों िे िाम प ट्टा भूदाि समनत
द्वारा िहीिं किया गया स द्ध होता है। यह भी
स्पष्ट है कि वववाददत भूसम िभी भी भूदाि
 समनत िे िाम िहीिं रही है इ सलये
नियमािु ार भूदाि समनत द्वारा प ट्टा किये
जािे िा िोई औगचत्य भी िहीिं है। जहािं ति
अपीलािंट िमलारािी राम ागर, राम ुमेर,
 ुरेश चन्र व रामिुबेर िी अपील िा प्रश्ि है।
पत्रावली िे अवलोिि े यह ववददत है कि
आधार वर्ा में वववाददत भूसम गुलाब चन्र िे
िाम रही। इ बात िा िोई ाक्ष्य िहीिं है कि
वववाददत भूसम िभी भूदाि िे खाते में गयी है।
इ सलये प ट्टा िरिे िा अगधिार िहीिं था यदद
प ट्टे किये भी गये है तो वह नियमािु ार ि
होिर क्षेत्रागधिार िे बाहर है जजििा अिुपालि
किया जािा उगचत िहीिं है। पत्रावली िे
अवलोिि े यह बात भी स्पष्ट होती है कि वर्ा
1858 में गुलाबचन्र िा िाम िा खाररज िरिे
भूसम गािंव भा में दजा हुई है। यदद भूदाि िे
िाम भूसम होती तो भूदाि समनत िा िाम
खाररज होता । इ प्रिार स्पष्ट है कि वववाददत
भूसम िभी भी भूदाि समनत िी िही रही है
और ि ही भूदाि समनत िी ओर े प ट्टेदारों
िो प ट्टे किये जािे िा िोई अगधिार क्षेत्र ही
था। ववद्वाि चिबन्दी अगधिारी िे पक्षों द्वारा
दाणखल किये गये सलणखत एविं मौणखि ाक्ष्यों
तथा पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत बह पर पूणा वववेचिा
िरते हुये न्याय िंगत गुण-दोर् िे आधार पर
आदेश पाररत किया है। प्रत्येि त्रबन्दु िो स्पष्ट
किया गया है। इ सलये मैं चिबन्दी अगधिारी
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379
िे आदेश में कि ी प्रिार िे हस्तक्षेप िा िोई
औगचत्य िहीिं पाता हूाँ। च०अ० िा आदेश अपिे
स्थाि पर ववगधि रूप े न्यानयि प्रकक्रया िे
अन्तागत ही एविं उगचत पाररत किया गया है।
 भी अपीलें बलहीि हेिे िे िारण निरस्त किये
जािे योग्य है।

आदेश

अतः आदेश हुआ कि उपरोक्त
वववेचि िे आधार पर भी अपीलें निरस्त िी
जाती है। वाद अमलदरामद पत्रावसलयािं दाणखल
दफ्तर िी जाये"

10. It is to be noted that during
pendency
of
the
Appeal
No.
1119/2037/1255
(Balwant
Singh
vs.
Gaonsabha), the appellant Balwant Singh
died and in his place name of his one of the
legal heirs namely Dilip Kumar Singh was
substituted and this aspect of the case has
not been impeached and is also evident
from
the underlined
portion of
the
impugned order dated 07.06.2003, quoted
above.

11. At this stage, considering the fact
that in place of Balwant Singh name of
Dilip Kumar Singh was substituted and
also that Sandeep Singh, petitioner in Writ
- B No. 566 of 2005 is claiming his rights
on the property/land in issue on the basis of
Bhoodan Lekh/Gift deed dated 26.03.1958
executed in favour of his father Balwant
Singh, following query was put to Shri
Somvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner in Writ - B Nos. 556 of 2005,
561 of 2005, 562 of 2005, 566 of 2005, 616
of 2005 and 167 of 2007.

As to who had filed the revision
challenging the order dated 07.06.2003
passed in Appeal No. 1119/2037/1255
(Balwant Singh vs. Gaon Sabha) preferred
by Balwant Singh."

11.1. In response to aforesaid, it is
stated by Shri Somvanshi that Ram Naresh
Singh S/o Balwant Singh had filed the
Revision No. 268/653 challenging the order
dated 07.06.2023 passed in the appeal
preferred by Balwant Singh against the
order of C.O. dated 13.01.1994.

11.2. Taking note of the aforesaid, this
Court again put a query to Shri Somvanshi
as to how a petition filed by Sandeep Singh
would be maintainable in the aforesaid
background of the case.

11.3. In response to aforesaid, he
stated that the petition No. Writ - B No.
566 of 2005 has been filed by Sandeep
Singh being legal heir of Balwant Singh.

12. Challenging the order of the
S.O.C. dated 07.06.2003 the following
revisions were filed before the D.D.C.:-

(i).
Revision
No.
258/658
(Sureshchandra
vs.
Gaonsabha
and
Others).

(ii). Revision No. 257/659 (Smt.
Kamla Rani vs. Gaonsabha and Others).

(iii).
Revision
No.
261/654
(Babulal vs. Gaonsabha and Others).

(iv). Revision No. 263/656 (Ram
Sagar vs. Gaonsabha and Others).

(v). Revision No. 268/653 (Ram
Naresh Singh vs. Gaonsabha and Others).

(vi). Revision No. 262/655 (Ram
Sumer vs. Gaonsabha and Others).

(vii).
Revision
No.
259/652
(Radheylal vs. Gaonsabha and Others).

(viii).Revision
No.
326/549
(Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. Gaonsabha
and
Others)."
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The revisions, indicated above,
were dismissed by the D.D.C. vide order
dated 25.02.2005. The relevant portion of
the order dated 25.02.2005 is extracted
herein under:-

"मैंिे पूरे प्रिरण िा गहितापूवाि
ववचार किया और पाया कि वतामाि में वववाददत
भूसम बिंजर दीगर िे खाते में दजा है। पूवा में
वववाददत भूसम 1359 े 1363 फ ली ति
गुलाबचन्र पुत्र लाला अमरिाथ िे िाम दजा
बतायी जाती है। निगरािीिताागण िा दावा है
कि गुलाबचन्द िे अपिी भूसम भूदाि समनत
िो दाि िर ददया था और भूदाि समनत े
निगरािीिताागण िे पक्ष में पट्टा किया गया
था और वह आज ति िात्रबज है। उल्लेखिीय है
कि निगरािीिताागण िो यह स्वीिार है कि
तह ीलदार िे आदेश ददिािंि 31-01-59 े
वववाददत भूसम ग्राम माज िे िाम दजा िर दी
गयी। उििा तिा है कि यह आदेश तह ीलदार
िे अगधिार क्षेत्र े बाहर था। यदद थोड़ी देर िे
सलये यह माि भी सलया जाय तो निगरािी
िताागण िे सलए यह आवश्यि था कि इ
आदेश िो क्षम न्यायालय में चुिौती देते
परन्तु उििी ओर े इ तरह िी कि ी
िायावाही िा किया जािा िही पाया जाता है।
इ िे अनतररक्त प्रथम चक्र िी चिबन्दी में भी
निगरािीिताागण िे पट्टे िे आधार पर दाणखल
खाररज िी िायावाही िही िी गयी है और वह
अब धारा 49 जोत चिबन्दी अगधनियम े
बागधत है। जहािं ति ए ०िी०ओ० /फारेस्ट
 ेदटलमेंट आकफ र िे आदेश िा प्रश्ि है, इ
वाद में निगरािीिताागण िा स्वत्व घोवर्त िहीिं
किया गया है। अब वतामाि में निगरािीिताा िो
कि ी प्रिार िे स्वत्व प्रदाि िहीिं किये जा
 िते। अवर न्यायालयों िे भी ाक्ष्यों िी
वववेचिा िरते हुये जो निणाय ददया है वह
ववगध म्मत प्रतीत होता है और उ में कि ी
हस्तक्षेप िी आवश्यिता प्रतीत िहीिं होती।
निगरानियों में बल िहीिं है और निरस्त होिे
योग्य है।

आदेश

उपयुाक्त वववेचिा िे आधार पर भी
8 निगरानियािं निरस्त िी जाती हैं। पत्रावसलयािं
वाद अमलदरामद दाणखल दफ्तर हो।"

14.
In
the
aforesaid
factual
background,
the
petition(s),
indicated
above, have been filed.

B.
SUBMISSIONS
OF
LEARNED
COUNSEL
FOR
THE
PETITIONER(S)-

15.
Shri
Manish
Singh,
learned
counsel for the petitioners in Writ - B Nos.
480 of 2005, 501 of 2005, in addition to his
oral submissions has also submitted written
submissions, which are extracted herein
under:-

"1. That Village Jabrauli was
notified U/S 4 of the Z.A.L.R. Act some time
in the year 1953 i.e. 1360 Fasli. In the
basic year Khatauni name of Seth Gulab
Chand stood recorded as Sirdar in Khata
No.196. Name of Gulab Chand continued
in 1362 Fasli also and in Kahata No.374
Khasra Plot No.1176 Ba. Annexure No.3 &
4.
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381

2. Section 2 (c) of the Bhoodan
Yagya Act defines the word "owner" of the
land as its Bhoomidhar or Sirdar. Thus not
only Bhoomidhars but Sirdars were also
made entitled to donate their land holding
in Bhoodan Yagya.

3. Seth Gulab Chand being a
"Sirdar" donated entire land of Khasra
Plot No.1176 Ba under the Bhoodan
Yagya.
The
Bhoodan
Yagya
Sub
Committee of District Lucknow after
following
the
prescribed
procedure
made grant to the petitioner, being a
landless person, 5 acres of Land of
Khasra Plot No.1176 Ba with Sirdari
rights. The petitioner is in continuous
possession over the land granted to her
since then and doing agriculture on it.
The petitioner has regularly paid rent of
the land and irrigation charges to the
revenue authorities. The authorities of
the Bhoodan Committee assured the
petitioner that mutation of her name in
the revenue records will be done by the
Tehsildar. Bhoodan Deed (Bhoodan
Lekh) dated 26.03.1958 is Annexure
No.8.

4. It came in the knowledge of the
petitioner that a notification was issued
U/S 4 of the Indian Forest Act and the land
in question along with other land was
proposed to be declared as Reserve Forest.
The petitioner filed objections before the
Forest Settlement Officer/Sub.Divisional
Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow that she is
the Sirdar/tenant of khasra plot No.1176 M
which is now Khasra Plot No.1209.

5. The Convenor of the District
Bhoodan Samiti Sri Suraj Pal Singh
appeared before the Forest Settlement
Officer and he proved the execution of the
Donation Deed given to the petitioner. The
Forest Settlement Officer was pleased to
allow the petitioners' objections and
excluded the land belonging to the
petitioner from being declared as Reserved
Forest. Annexure No.9.

6.
During
the
Consolidation
proceedings the Tehsildar vide order dated
03.01.1959 passed an order directing the
name of Seth Gulab Chand to be expunged
from the Khata No.1176/3. The said order
is bad in the eyes of law because during
consolidation proceedings the powers of all
other courts including revenue courts
ceases.

7.
The
petitioner
filed
Declaratory Suit U/S 229 B of Z.A.L.R. Act,
1950 numbered as 101/77-78. The same
was ordered to have been abated due to the
fact that the village had come under
Consolidation
Proceedings.
Order
dt.8/10/80 Annexure No.10.

8. After Second Consolidation
proceedings
objections
filed
before
Consolidation Officer along with 12 years
Khatauni pertaining to 1374 Fasli to 1385
Fasli in which the Lekhpal has made
endorsement and the name of petitioner
along with others were entered on the basis
of Bhoodan Lekh. Annexure No. 12 & 13.

9. The Consolidation Officer did
not consider the material documents
available on record and dismissed the
objections on 13.01.1994 and entry in
favour of Gaon Sabha continued. Annexure
No.14.

10. Appeal was dismissed by
Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
Lucknow on 07.06.2003. Annexure No.16.

11. Revision dismissed by DDC
on 25.02.2005. Annexure No.18.

Grounds

12. The main ground of dismissal
of petitioners objections by the Courts
below is that the donor Seth Gulab Chand
being a "Sirdar" could not have donated
the land to the Bhoodan Committee. The
authorities misread the provisions of the
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 which stood
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prior to 1977, and which clearly defined
the "Owner" means, as respects any land
(i)
in
areas
where
the
rights
of
intermediaries have vested in the State
Government under Section 4 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950, its bhumidhar or sirdar as the
case may be;"

Section 10 of Bhoodan Yagna
Act, deals with "Donor competent to donate
land. Notwithstanding anything contained
in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939, or any other law relating to land
tenure as may be applicable an owner shall
be competent for purposes of this Act to
donate the land held by him as such to the
Bhoodan Yagna."

Without
reading
the
above
provisions of Bhoodan Yagna Act which
stood when the donation was made and the
donation deed was granted, they came to
the conclusion that the donor Seth Gulab
Chand being a "Sirdar" could not have
donated
the
land
to
the
Bhoodan
Committee.

13. With respect to the illegal
order dated 03.01.1959 passed by the
Tehsildar expunging the name of Seth
Gulab Chand from Khata No.1176, the
respondent authorities have claimed that
since the title holder did not challenge
the order dated 03.01.1959 the order
attained finality. However, the same
authorities in Case No.3/2011-12 U/S
166/167 Z.A.L.R. Act with respect to part
of the same land have held the order
dated 03.01.1959 to be bad in view of
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
case of Jagdeo Versus Mihilal. It was
held
by
the
Assistant
Collector,
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow that the order
dated 03.01.1959 passed by the Tehsildar
expunging the name of Seth Gulab Chand
from Khata No. 1176 was without
jurisdiction and as such, it was a nullity
in the eyes of law. Annexure. No.6 filed
along with Supplementary Affidavit in
Pramod Kumar Mishra case Writ-B
No.556 of 2005.

14. The Suit filed by the
petitioner U/S 229 B of the Z.A.L.R. Act
after the First Consolidation proceedings
were ordered to be abated as the Second
Consolidation proceedings began in 1980
and as such, it cannot be said that the
petitioner had not taken any steps to get
her name recorded in the revenue records
after
the
First
Consolidation
proceedings.

15. In the Second Counter
Affidavit the respondents have stated that
the paper books of the cases are weeded
after lapse of a period of 12 years, the
relevant records is not available. This
statement cannot be believed to be true.
Moreover,
the
Forest
Settlement
Officer/Sub Divisional Officer passed his
order on 30.03.1966. He passed his order
on the basis of Donation Deed granted to
the petitioner under the Bhoodan Yagna
Act. The convenor of the Bhoodan
Committee appeared before the Forest
Settlement
Officer
and
proved
the
donation deed to be true.

The Khatauni pertaining to 1374
Fasli to 1385 Fasli in which the Lekhpal
has made endorsement and the name of
petitioner along with others were entered
on the basis of Bhoodan patta. This
document was also available for perusal.

In case the respondents came to
the conclusion that the Bhoodan Deed was
wrongly given and/or the entries were
wrongly made, they could have proceeded
for cancellation of the Donation Deed,
which was never done. Such documents
could not have been weeded out which
were needed in litigation by the authorities.
Moreover, the registers of Bhoodan Yagna
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
383
Act which records all the donations made
and the Donation Deed granted cannot be
said to have been weeded out.

16. The respondents have also
tried to establish that the petitioners were
minor when the patta was given to them.
However, in the case of the petitioner the
respondents have themselves admitted that
Kamla Rani might have been 20 years, in
view of the age mentioned by her in the
affidavit filed in support of writ petition.
Kamla Rani's aadhar is being placed on
record for perusal of Hon'ble Court. As per
her aadhar the date of birth of Kamla Rani
is 1937, which makes her aged 21 years in
the year 1958 when the Bhoodan Deed was
granted to her."

16. Shri S.P. Singh Somvanshi,
learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ -
B Nos. 556 of 2005, 561 of 2005, 562 of
2005, 566 of 2005, 616 of 2005 and 167 of
2007, in addition to his oral submissions
has also submitted the written submissions.
The written submissions submitted are
extracted here-in-under :-

"1. That Village Jabrauli was
notified U/S 4 of the Z.A. L.R. Act some
time in the year 1953 I.e. 1360 Fasli. In
the basic year Khatauni name of Seth
Gulab Chand stood recorded as Sirdar in
Khata No.196. Name of Gulab Chand
continued in 1362 Fasli also and in
Kahata No. 374 Khasra Plot No. 1176 Ba
(now Khasra No. 1209). This document
annexed as Annexure No.-3 and 4 in the
Writ-B No. 480/2005 (Smt. Kamla Rani
Vs. DDC and others).

2. That Section 2 (c) of the
Bhoodan Yagya Act defines the word
"owner" of the land as its Bhoomidhar or
Sirdar. Thus not only Bhoomidhars but
Sirdars were also made entitled to donate
their land holding in Bhoodan Yagya.

3. That Seth Gulab Chand being
a "Sirdar" donated entire land of Khasra
Plot No.1176 Ba (now Khasra No. 1209)
under the Bhoodan Yagya. The Bhoodan
Yagya Sub Committee of District Lucknow
after following the prescribed procedure
made grant of donation deed to the
petitioner, being a landless person, 5 acres
of Land of Khasra Plot No.1176 Ba (new
Khasra No. 1209) with Sirdari rights. The
petitioners are in continuous possession
over the land granted to them since then
and doing agriculture on it. The petitioners
have regularly paid rent of the land and
Irrigation
charges
to
the
revenue
authorities. The authorities of the Bhoodan
Committee assured the petitioners that
mutation of their name in the revenue
records will be done by the Tehsildar. In
the same petitions some Bhudan Deed
annexed and all 6 Bhudan deed are being
annexed in the written argument also.

4. That it came in the knowledge
of the petitioners that a notification was
issued U/S 4 of the Indian Forest Act and
the land in question along with other land
was proposed to be declared as Reserve
Forest. The petitioners filed objections
before the Forest Settlement Officer/Sub.
Divisional Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow
that they are the Sirdar/tenant of khasra
plot No.1176 M which is now Khasra Plot
No.1209.

5. That the Convenor of the
District Bhoodan Samiti Sri Suraj Pal
Singh
appeared
before
the
Forest
Settlement Officer and he proved the
execution of the Donation Deed given to
the petitioners. The Forest Settlement
Officer
was
pleased
to
allow
the
petitioners' objections and excluded the
land belonging to the petitioner from being
declared as Reserved Forest annexed as
Annexure No.9 in Writ-B No. 480/2005
(Smt. Kamla Rani Vs. DDC and others).
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. That during the Consolidation
proceedings the Tehsildar vide order dated
03.01.1959 passed an order directing the
name of Seth Gulab Chand to be expunged
from the Khata No.1176/3. The said order
is bad in the eyes of law because during
consolidation proceedings the powers of all
other courts including revenue courts
cases.

7. That the petitioners filed
Declaratory Suit U/S 229 B of Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950 alongwith Smt. Kamla Rani
numbered as 101 and others/77-78. The
same was ordered to have been abated due
to the fact that the village had come under
Consolidation
Proceedings
and
this
observation already mentioned in order of
Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation and also annexed the order
dt. 08.10.1980 as Annexure No. 10 in WritB No. 480/2005 (Smt. Kamla Rani Vs. DDC
and others).

8. After Second Consolidation
proceedings
objections
filed
before
Consolidation Officer along with 12 years
Khatauni pertaining to 1374 Fasli to 1385
Fasli in which the Lekhpal has made
endorsement and the name of petitioners
alongwith others were entered on the basis
of Bhoodan patta. (Annexure No.12 & 13 in
Writ-B No. 480/2005 (Smt. Kamla Rani Vs.
DDC and others).

9. The Consolidation Officer did
not consider the material documents
available on record and dismissed the
objections of petitioners on 13.01.1994 and
entry in favour of Gaon Sabha. After
challenge the said order appeal was
dismissed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, Lucknow on 07.06.2003 and
after challenge the same by the petitioners
revision also dismissed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation vide order dated
25.02.2005 and the petitioner No.-1 to 5
name alongwith case number mentioned in
the
order
of
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement Consolidation Officer and in
revision the Balwant Singh had died and
the legal heirs of Balwant Singh Mr. Ram
Naresh S/o Balwant Singh filed revision
and petition filed by Mr. Sandeep Singh son
of Balwant Singh bearing Writ-B No.
566/2005 and in revisional Court order the
case No.16, (forge case) dated 30.03.1966
and due to fraudulent manner recorded the
entry by Arun Prakas minor son of Shanti
Prakash through gaurdian Smt. Sharda
Kumari (mother) name has been cancelled
and recorded the name of Gaon Sabha
related to 32 Bigha land in Khasra plot No.
1209 and later on the Sub Divisional
Magistrate vide order dated 11.01.2012
deleted the name of Gaon Sabha and
recorded the name of Arun Prakash son of
Shanti
Prakash
and
the
order
of
Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation annexed as Annexure No.1,
2 and 3 of the writ petition.

10. That the petitioner No.-6 as
writ-B No. 167/2007 (Algoo Ram Vs. DDC)
was filed the separate objection before the
Consolidation Officer which has been
rejected on 17.05.2005 on the ground of
delay later on the appeal and revision filed
by the petitioner No.-6 which had also
dismissed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation dated 25.07.2005 and the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Lucknow vide order dated 15.12.2006
which has annexed as Annexure no.-2, 3
and 4 in the Writ-B No. 167/2007 (Algoo
Ram Vs. D.D.C.)

GROUNDS

11. The main ground of dismissal
of petitioners objections by the Courts
below is that the donor Seth Gulab Chand
11 All. Tarawati & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
385
being a "Sirdar" could not have donated
the land to the Bhoodan Committee. The
authorities misread the provisions of the
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 which stood
prior to 1977, and whichclearly defined the
"Owner" means, as respects any land (1) in
areas where the rights of intermediaries
have vested in the State Government under
Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, its bhumidhar
or sirdar as the case may be;"