Lalji vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12919 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Lalji vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 24 November, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76991
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - B No. - 54 of 2005   
 
   Lalji    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Deputy Director Of Consolidation Faizabad And Others 6    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Jagdish Prasad Maurya, Banwari Lal Maurya   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., D.N. Tripathi, Deep Narayan Tripathi, P.K. Mishra, Rakesh Mishra   
 
     Along with :   
 
  
 
1.   
 
Civil Misc Review Application No. 19 of 2021:  
 
Lal Ji 
 
Versus 
 
D.d.c. Faizabad and others   
 
  
 
2.   
 
Writ - B No. 312 of 2010:  
 
Bhasker Tripathi S/O Late Chandra Bhushan 
 
Versus 
 
Deputy Director of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 6
 
   
 
 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.      

1. Heard Sri B.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Sri Deep Narain Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the deceased respondent no. 5.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner Lal Ji was dismissed, as a consequence, the order dated 27.02.1985 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was affirmed which in turn affirmed the order dated 11.05.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer.

4. During the pendency of the instant petition, this matter was taken up before this Court and on 08.01.2021, this Court had passed the following order which reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri D.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

The instant petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the DDC, Faizabad.

Sri D.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5 submits that while filing is counter affidavit he specifically brought on record the order dated 11.01.2005 as Annexure No. CA-11 by means of which the appeal has finally been decided by the SOC which was in pursuance of the order of the DDC dated 24.06.2004 which is impugned in the aforesaid writ petition.

On the strength of the aforesaid, it is submitted that in so far as the instant petition is concerned, the same has been rendered infructuous since even after the decision of the SOC, the said order has been challenged in a further Revision which has also been rejected and it is now the subject matter in Writ Petition No. 312 (Consolidation) of 2020.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition No. 54 (Consolidation) of 2005 be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous and no further orders are required to be passed in the aforesaid petition.

The Court had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to respond since the counter had been received and he was not in a position to dispute the aforesaid fact. Accordingly, the petition has been rendered infructuous with passage of time and is accordingly dismissed.

After the order was passed, Sri Banwari Lal Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner stated to have misbehave and raised his voice and tried to intimidate and threaten the Court. He then wanted further time and alleged that the time is not being given. He was informed that since the order impugned has been rendered infructuous on account of the fact that the appeal has been decided and in case if he is an answer to the aforesaid, the matter may be adjourned. He could not give any reply rather he kept on raising his voice and uttered irresponsible statements which has vitiated the atmosphere of the Court and apparently, the demenour and the conduct of the counsel is absolutely deplorable.

This Court takes strong exception to the same and has called for the Bailiff to take him to the custody.

A little later, the President of the Bar Sri H.J.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate along with the Secretary Sri Sharad Pathak with other senior Members had come to the Court along with Sri Banwari Lal Maurya and the said Banwari Lal Maurya, Advocate has expressed remorse and tendered an unconditional apology and the President and Secretary of the Bar has also assured that the said counsel shall not misbehave in future.

Considering the aforesaid, the unconditional apology of Sri Banwari Lal Maurya is accepted and he shall not be taken in custody and be discharged."

5. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review which came to be registered as Review Petition No. 19 of 2021 which after hearing the learned counsel for the parties by means of order dated 04th November, 2025 was allowed and the matter was heard on merits.

6. During the course of the submissions, it was indicated that there are proceedings pending before the Consolidation Authorities and in the aforesaid backdrop, the Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek updated and complete instructions in respect of the proceedings pending before the Consolidation Authorities.

7. Today, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel who has provided a copy of the written instructions, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record.

8. It has been contended by Sri Pandey that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous for the reasons that the petitioner has not indicated complete and correct facts.

9. It is urged that in the writ petition, three orders are under challenge. The order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is under challenge has exhausted its life, inasmuch as, by the said order, the order impugned passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the matter was remanded.

10. It is urged that in furtherance of the order of remand, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has passed fresh orders on 11.01.2005 against which the present petitioner has already challenged the same in a revision pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the next date fixed therein is 25.11.2025.

11. The contention is that once the orders have already been exhausted and in furtherance of the remand, fresh orders have been passed which are under challenge in a pending revision, nothing survives in the instant petition.

12. The Court had put Sri B.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner with a specific query as to where he has indicated the fact that in furtherance of the order dated 24.06.2004, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 2.02.1985 had been set aside and that after remand, fresh orders were passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 11.01.2005 against which the petitioner had filed a revision.

13. Responding to the said query, the counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the petitioner had stated and disclosed the true facts and has also pointed out that ground D of the Review clearly indicates this fact, coupled with the fact that a rejoinder affidavit was filed in the writ petition itself, hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts.

14. In order to ascertain the veracity, the Court has considered the review-petition and for the sake of clarity Ground "D" mentioned therein is being reproduced hereinafter:-

"(D) Because while deciding the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 the important and necessary facts were left from placing before Hon'ble Court consideration that the petitioner challenged the order dated 11.01.2005 passed in appeal on the ground that the petitioner being legal heir of Mst. Manraji was a necessary party but he was not impleaded party in the aforesaid appeals by the appellants and the said appeals were decided without hearing him against law which is not related to the subject matter of order passed in revision no. 2030 impugned in the present writ petition, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed according to law."

15. The Court has also taken note of the rejoinder affidavit said to have been filed by the petitioner on 27.07.2015 along with C.M.A. No. 77321 of 2015. The said rejoinder affidavit runs into 9 paragraphs, however, there is no mention of the fact regarding the Appellate Order passed dated 11.01.2005, after the remand. The said rejoinder affidavit was filed on 27.07.2015 i.e. after 10 years of filing of the petition but this fact was not brought on record.

16. It will be relevant to notice that at the initial stage when this matter came up before the Court on 08.01.2021, this was the same ground upon which the writ petition was dismissed of which review had been preferred, yet as noticed above, Ground 'D' which has been reproduced does not indicate any fact with clarity.

17. This fact apart Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that his revision is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and though the same had been dismissed for want of prosecution and the petitioner had also moved an application seeking restoration which also was dismissed for want of prosecution and a subsequent application was moved which has been allowed and the original application for recall is still pending.

18. Having considered the aforesaid and the manner in which the pleadings have been delivered, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made a candid disclosure of true and correct facts which are important for the aforesaid writ petition. Despite the fact that the writ petition was dismissed in the year 2021 on the very same premise but an attempt was made to give colour to the proceedings, inasmuch as, to indicate that the revision which was decided in pursuance whereof remand proceedings were pending was relatable to a different cause of action than the cause of action which is sought to be urged before this Court but it could not be established.

19. The fact remains that the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as per the petitioner on the ground of maintainability, however, the substantive revision was allowed, as a consequence, the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had been set aside and the matter was remanded for a decision afresh. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had ever attempted to get the proceedings stayed which were pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

20. Once, in pursuance of the order dated 24.06.2004, the Appellate Court had passed a fresh order on 11.01.2005, admittedly, the same was not challenged before this Court nor the said fact was brought on record rather the petitioner chose to file a revision assailing the said order and the said revision since 2005 onwards remained pending but this fact was not brought on record in clear terms. The facts have not been clearly stated rather deliberately misrepresentation has been made.

21. It is only during the course of hearing and after seeking the instructions from the learned Standing Counsel that the facts could be explicitly noticed and even when the query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he could not deny the same.

22. Since the orders impugned have already outlived its utility as already noticed above and the petitioner has filed his revision, which is said to be dismissed in default and application for recall is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the instant petition apparently does not survive and the same is dismissed.

23. The Court noticing the way the proceedings have been carried forward by filing a review as well as making submissions on the merits of the petition, though clear and complete facts have not been appropriately brought on record nor mentioned, hence, the Court imposes a cost of Rs. 11,000/- on the petitioner to be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court within a period of ten days from today. Leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue his remedy as may be available as per law but the instant petition is dismissed as infructuous in the aforesaid circumstances.

24. The connected petition No. 312 (Consolidation) of 2013 shall be heard tomorrow i.e. 25th November, 2025 and Sri S.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner shall come prepared for final hearing as the matter shall not be adjourned. In case if the learned counsel for the petitioner has any difficulty, he shall make alternate arrangements or else appropriate orders will be passed.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

November 24, 2025

Asheesh