Indrajeet Tiwari vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11108 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Indrajeet Tiwari vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation ... on 26 September, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:60416
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
 
 
WRIT - B No. - 17998 of 2021 Judgment Reserved on 21.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 26.09.2025
 
    
 
   Indrajeet Tiwari    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Dy. Director Of Consolidation Balrampur And Ors.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Deepak Kumar Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Krishana Kumar Singh, Mohd. Ali, Vijai Bahadur Verma   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.      

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi,l Advocate assisted by Sri Sant Prasad Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. The dispute in the present case relates to land situated at Gata number 7501, measuring 2.74 acres, situated in Village Balrampur, Pargana & Tehsil - Sadar, District, Balrampur, which, according to the petitioner, was recorded in the name of Baleshwar Prasad, son of Dasarath, for the fasli year 1356 to 1359.

3 .It has been submitted that the petitioner is the son of Anil Tiwari, who was the brother of Late Baleshwar Prasad, son of Dasrath. On 11.10.1979, Baleshwar Prasad executed a will in favour of the petitioner. After the death of Baleshwar Prasad, the petitioner claims to have inherited the disputed land, and as he was a minor on the date of Baleshwar's death, the land was looked after by his mother, being his natural guardian.

4. It is stated that on 18/7/2012, the petitioner came to know, through the area Lekhpal, who had come for inspection, that the land was recorded in the name of respondent No. 4, i.e., Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur. Pursuant to this, the petitioner inspected the record and found that there was an entry in CH Form - 45, Khata number 1692, dated 9/5/1983, wherein, on the basis of an order dated 30/12/1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the land had been recorded in the name of Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur. He has further stated that he tried to find out about the proceedings conducted by the Consolidation Officer, culminating in the order dated 30/12/1975, but the record measuring 180/57 could not be found.

5. It is in the aforementioned circumstances that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 11(1), of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer, District, Balrampur, along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned after imposing a cost of RS. 500/-. The Consolidation Officer had considered the entire facts and held that, by means of an order dated 30/12/1975, the land had come to be recorded in the name of Nagar Palika Parishad, against which no appeal was preferred by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the name of Hariom was also found in the record, against which the petitioner did not initiate any proceedings.

6. He has submitted that the registered will was issued in favour of the petitioner after 1975, on which date, the petitioner, did not have any right, interest, and title in the said dispute land, and consequently held that no benefit of the will would accrue to the petitioner. He further held that no evidence was filed by the petitioner in regard to the claim made by him and accordingly rejected the appeal.

7. The petitioner had assailed the order dated 07.01.2021 by filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revisional authority affirmed the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, rejected the revision. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 7/1/2021 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, as well as the order dated 18/2/2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, undoubtedly, the land was recorded in the name of Dashrath, which is evident from the perusal of the khasra pertaining to the fasli years 1356 to 1359. He submits that Dashrath had died, leaving a will in favour of the petitioner dated 11/10/1979. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were initiated by the Nagar Palika Parishad, of which no record is found, and therefore, submits that the order dated 30/12/1975 is illegal and arbitrary on the basis of non-existing facts.

9. Before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, a report was called for from the Consolidation Officer, who had submitted his report on 23/5/2015 pertaining to the record of proceedings under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer, in his report, has submitted that the land is situated outside the municipal areas and is being used for solid waste management and records from the fasli year 1415-20, in khata number 70, gata number 1663 (old number 17501), area 0.59 acres/1.0430 hectare is recorded in the name of Nagar Palika Parishad, and on a spot inspection conducted on 27/12/2014, rabi crop was found standing on which it was informed that the crop had been sown by the petitioner and the possession of Nagar Palika Parishad was not found on the spot.

10. From the material on record, one thing is apparent and clear that the order dated 30/12/1975 is not on record, nor is the application filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad on record, which may indicate as to how the Nagar Palika Parishad moved the application for their name to be mutated in place of the name of the tenure holders. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad on 12/4/2024, they have opposed the claim of the petitioner. They have further objected to the claim of the petitioner to the said land on the basis of a decree in proceedings under Section 229-B//209 dated 7/5/1964, stating that as the said order has not been filed before any court, it cannot be said that the said proceedings were pertaining to the disputed land and stated that the petitioner has lost his right and interest in the said land, inasmuch as he has not filed any objections before the proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and therefore initiation of proceedings after notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 is beyond jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary, and the appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.

11. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the name of Baleshwar Prasad was recorded in the revenue records in fasli 1356 to 1359. Subsequently, it seems that there is no record of proceedings available as to how the name of Nagar Palika Parishad came to be recorded in the revenue records, nor is the order dated 30/12/1975 available on record. Again, there are no proceedings available as to how the name of Ram Lotan was entered in the revenue record. The claim of the petitioner to the disputed land is through a registered will dated 10/11/1979.

12. Incidentally, in the present petition, the Aadhaar card of the petitioner has been filed, showing his date of birth to be 25/10/1980. There is no explanation available in the entire petition as to how a registered will could have been executed by Baleshwar Prasad in favour of the petitioner in 1979, even though the petitioner was not yet born.

13. From the petition, as well as the evidence filed by the respondents, this Court finds that an averment has been made by the petitioner with regard to a declaratory suit under section 229 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, having been filed by Baleshwar Prasad in case No. 627/54/62, titled as (Baleshwar Prasad Vs. Ram Lotan and others), which, according to the petitioner, was decided in favour of Baleshwar Prasad vide judgment and order dated 7/5/1964. He has stated that the said fact is also recorded in the institution register, ('??' Register at serial No. 4407 of Village Balrampur Dehat), neither is a copy of the plaint filed by the petitioner, nor the judgment dated 7/5/1964, available on record. Before both the authorities below, the only evidence available was with regard to the name of Baleshwar Prasad and the record of khasra of fasli year 1356 to 1359. Copies of CH Form 23 and CH Form 45 are the only documents that were before the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the said disputed land.

14. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are title proceedings and are to be decided on the basis of evidence and material adduced by the parties and after clearly appreciating the contentions raised before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner, due to his minority, was not aware of the said proceedings and he denies that any such proceedings in fact took place before the Consolidation Officer. Inasmuch as no record of the proceedings is available, and even a report in this regard is not available on record. The claim of Nagar Palika Parishad is also not made out on the basis of records, and affidavits filed by them. Since the said area is not included in the municipal area, and there is no material on record as to how the Nagar Palika Parishad was claiming ownership and rights over the said land, no order could have been passed in favour of Nagar Palika Parishad. Even in the affidavit filed in the present writ proceedings, they have not annexed a copy of the order dated 30/12/1975, which was undoubtedly passed in proceedings initiated by them. This court further finds that the petitioner had not been born when the will was registered by Dashrath in favour of the petitioner, and it is due to these reasons that the claim of the petitioner could not succeed before any of the authorities below.

15. This Court also finds that there is no sufficient, cogent, and reliable material available on record to interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities below. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

16. This Court is of the considered view that, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Singh and Others Vs. Meena & ors., 2024 (6) SCC 818, it shall be open for the petitioner to institute regular proceedings by filing a suit for declaration where the parties will be at liberty to present all the evidence in support of their claim regarding the disputed land.

17. It is provided that, in case such a suit is filed within four weeks from today, the trial court shall consider and decide the application for interim relief, as well as the suit, with expedition, in accordance with law.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

September 26, 2025

Ravi/