Anand Kumar v. Ram Janam Shahi

Heard Sri Ram Janam Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the respondent no.2 dated 6.8.2025 and 14.3.2019 in exercise of powers under Section 27(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the consolidation proceedings, the recorded tenure holder Devidas died, pursuant to which an order dated 29.10.1999 was passed under Section 12 of the Act to record the name of his widow Budhiya and five sons, namely Shiv Prasad, Doodhnath, Baijnath, Jainath and Parasnath. However, at the time of preparation of final consolidation records, CH Form 45 was prepared only in the name of Lalchand Prasad son of Baijnath Prasad, Vimla Devi wife of Doodhnath and Shiv Prasad son of Devi Prasad. It is further contended that before the notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued, Budhiya had transferred her 1/6 share to Vimla Devi wife of Doodhnath and Shiv Prasad transferred his 1/6 share to Lalchand Prasad son of Baijnath Prasad. As all the tenure holders being the heirs and legal representatives of Devidas were not brought on record, an application under Section 27(3) of the Act was moved before the respondent no.2, which was allowed by the order dated 14.3.2019 directing that name of Baijnath, Jainath and Parasnath be recorded in the revenue records over the land in dispute. The name of Doodhnath was left out, as no application was moved on behalf of Doodhnath or his heirs. 2 WRIB No. 1739 of 2026 The petitioner moved a recall application to set aside the order dated

14.3.2019, which has been rejected by the order of the respondent no.2 dated 6.8.2025.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of Vimla Devi wife of Doodhnath had come on record in pursuance of the gift deed executed by Budhiya and not as a heir of Doodhnath. As the name of Doodhnath was not recorded, therefore, after his death, the names of petitioner, who is his son, and Vimla Devi, his widow, have not been recorded as his heirs and legal representatives. The report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which is the basis of order dated

6.8.2025, shows that the name of Vimla Devi was recorded in the revenue records, pursuant to death of Doodhnath, is contrary to the records and thus unsustainable.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent nos.4/1, 4/2 and 5 to 10. Steps be taken within one week by registered/speed post.

All the respondents are granted time to file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the nature and possession of the land in dispute. May 14, 2026 Anil (Arun Kumar,J.)