Smt. Leelawati vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12583 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Leelawati vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 15 November, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:73414
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - B No. - 1088 of 2025   
 
   Smt. Leelawati    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atul Kumar, Ram Vishal Tripathi, Tarun Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Antriksh Verma, Vinod Mishra   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.      

1. Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kr. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to other private respondents are dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is bonafide purchaser of land situated at Gata No. 39 measuring 0.6530 hectare situated at Village - Pali, Pargana - Barausa, Tehsil - Sadar now Baldirai, District Sultanpur which was purchased by her by means of a registered sale deed executed on 27.12.2016 from the recorded tenure holder Smt. Geeta Rani, D/o Shri Manorma Maurya, W/o Shri Kishan Lal. It has been submitted that pursuant to the said sale deed the name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue records.

4. It has further been submitted that the disputed land was originally recorded in the name of Bhagauti S/o Jaggu who had sold out his entire share of Gata Nos. 39, 42 & 44 measuring 3 Beegha, 16 Biswa, 5 Dhur by means of two registered sale deeds dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 in favour of Ram Dular. Ram Dular had filed his objections for mutation application before Assistant Consolidation Officer who subsequently had referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer for adjudication. In the meanwhile, Bhagauti had died and an application was filed by one Rampata D/o Bhagauti claiming the disputed land on the basis of a will deed.

5. The matter came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 31.05.1993. The Consolidation Officer sustained the objections filed at the behest of Rampata and held that no permission U/S 5-C of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 was taken prior to the sale deeds dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 which was mandatory and therefore the same would be fatal to the title of the petitioner and accordingly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.05.1993 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the bar U/S 5-C of the Act of 1953 would apply only when a fragmentation of holding is sold and the said bar would not apply if the entire holding is sold and submitted that in the present case, the Ram Dular had purchased the entire gata from Bhagauti and therefore, the bar of Section 5-C would not be applicable in the present case. The Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted the contention of the petitioner and also relied upon the judgment in this regard in the case of Smt Ram Rati and others Vs. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and Ors, AIR 1974 ALL 106 and directed the mutation of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner.

7. Against the appellate order dated 17.03.2006, the respondents had preferred a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The Dy. Director of Consolidation after considering the entire factual controversy of the case had held that a perusal of the sale deed dated 23.10.1984 would itself indicate that Ram Dular had purchased only 1/2 share of the property of Bhagauti and not his entire share and therefore the bar of Section 5-C of the Act of 1953 would apply to the facts of the present case and accordingly allowed the revision and set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 17.03.2006.

8. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by means of present writ petition assailing the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 03.10.2025.

9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the objection with regard to Section 5-C of Act of 1953 was raised before the Consolidation Officer. Another objection which was raised by Rampata was that once a notification U/S 52 of U.P.C.H. Act has been issued then consolidation authorities do not have any right to decide the application for mutation and therefore the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction and the order of the Consolidation Officer itself was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

10. It has further been submitted that proper issues should be framed in this regard before any adjudication could have been made by him. He has further submitted that the order of the Dy. Direction of Consolidation is illegal and arbitrary with regard to interpretation of Section 5-C of Consolidation of Holding Act. He submits that undoubtedly there is a bar created U/S 5-C of U.P.C.H. Act but no consequences of the said bar has been provided and therefore it would not be mandatory provision but a mere directory provision and mere violation of Section 5-C cannot be utilized for disentiteling the petitioner from the benefit of the sale deed executed in his favour dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 and consequently submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the application of the petitioner should have been allowed and the property should have been recorded in name of the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were taken up in proceedings U/S 12 of Consolidation of Holding Act with regard to mutation of the property. It is stated that there is no material on record which can indicate that the proceedings were initiated after the notification was issued U/S 52 of the Consolidation of Holding Act and the argument of the petitioner that the proceedings are without jurisdiction would arise only when there was substantial material to indicate that proceedings have been initiated after conclusion of the consolation operations of issuance of notification U/S 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. It is in this regard he submits that a perusal of the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as appeal preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolation would indicate that there is no averment or mention that the proceedings were initiated subsequent to issuance of a notification U/S 52 of U.P.C.H. Act and therefore there is no merits in the arguments raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction. He further submits that the ground of the sale deed being hit by provision of Section 5-C of the Act of 1953 were taken from very initial stage before the Consolidation Officer and correct findings have been returned by him holding that prior permission was necessary before transfer of holding or part thereof and therefore the sale deeds dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 are hit by this provision of Section 5-C Act of 1953 and therefore the Consolidation Officer has correctly interpreted and rejected the application of the petitioner.

12. It has further been submitted that as regard the facts that the sale deeds dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 were only for a portion of the holding of Bhagauti finding has been returned by the Dy. Director of Consolidation and the petitioner has not assailed the said finding and accordingly even if the land transferred was portion of the holding is certainly hit by provision of Section 5-C and accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. I have heard rival contention of the petitioners and perused the record.

14. One of the main grounds which has been urged by petitioner is with regard to interpretation of Section 5-C as existing prior to its amendment. For the same of ready reference, Section 5-C is quoted hereinbelow:-

"(c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U.p. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall -

(i) use his holdings or any part thereof for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or

(ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in the consolidation area."

15. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions specially Section 5(1)(c)(ii), this Court finds that it is clear in its terms inasmuch it creates a bar of sale, gift or exchange of a holding or part thereof in a consolidation area. Undoubtedly it is during the period subsequent to issuance of a notification U/S 4 of the Act of 1953 and prior to issuance of a notification U/S 52 that the sale deeds dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 were executed. Accordingly to Section 5, once a notification U/S 4(2) is issued then the tenure holder is restrained from transferring by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part thereof in a consolation area.

16. It is not the case of the petitioner that either the land was not included for consolidation or was not part of notification U/S 4 and there was any order for "chak out" of the said land and accordingly the disputed land was part of the consolidation area. Once the aforesaid conditions are satisfied then the bar of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) would come into play and as per the aforesaid provision such a transfer can take place only with the express permission in writing of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the sale deeds dated 23.10.1984 and 13.11.1984 were executed without obtaining the permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and were consequently hit by the bar of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) . The Dy. Director of Consolidation while allowing the appeal of the petitioner has returned a finding that because the petitioner had purchased the "entire holding" then the bar of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) would not apply and accordingly had allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

17. On the contrary, the Settlement Officer Consolidation who has perused the aforesaid sale deeds and has categorically returned a finding that as per the sale deeds, Bhaghauti has transferred only 1/2 of his share namely 1 Beegha 8 Biswa and 2.5 Dhur and therefore the argument of the petitioner before the Dy. Director of Consolidation that the entire holding were transferred is not correct and in fact perverse. In light of the aforesaid uncontroverted facts this Court is of the considered view that the bar of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) clearly applies to the aforesaid sale deeds and in this regard this Court does not find any ground for interference with the findings recorded by Dy. Director of Consolidation. Bar on transfer applies to the entire holding or any portion thereof as per Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act of 1953, and undoubtedly both the sale deeds were executed without obtaining permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation as envisaged.

18. Once there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the proceedings were initiated during the currency of the consolidation proceedings and the application for mutation was filed before issuance of notification U/S 52 of the Act, therefore, I find that it was within the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to consider the objections preferred by the petitioner.

19. With regard to the fact as to whether the private respondent, namely, Rampata would be entitled to the said property or not is an issue which can be considered in an appropriate proceedings filed by a proper person inasmuch the petitioner who is claiming his right on the strength of a sale deed which sale deed has been held to be illegal and arbitrary in violation of the statutory provisions. In the present set of facts, the petitioner would be a stranger to the dispute pertaining to the rights of Rampata claiming to the property of her alleged predecessor in interest namely Bhagauti.

20. According, I do not find any ground to enter into the controversy with regard to the rights of Rampata and subsequent persons claiming the said property. Accordingly for the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

November 15, 2025

Ravi/