Ravendra Singh … v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

affirmed. For ready reference, order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court, is reproduced below: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he has reviewed his earlier order dated 30.03.2010. Point involved in the instant writ petition lies in a narrow compass as to whether consolidation courts have got jurisdiction to review their previous order. Facts culled out from the record, for the specific purpose to the point as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that against the order dated 26.08.1999 passed of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pradhan of village has preferred a revision at belated stage on 09.09.2003. Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 30.03.2010 (annexure no. 3), has 7 dismissed the revision on merits after hearing both the parties. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 30.03.2010, Village Pradhan has moved a restoration / review application dated

05.04.2010. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order impugned dated 11.02.2015, has reviewed his earlier order dated

30.03.2010, consequently, he has allowed the revision filed on behalf of Gram Pradhan and quashed the order dated 26.08.1999 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is no more res integra, as the ratio decided by Hon'ble full Bench of this Court in the case of Shivraji & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others reported in 1997 (88) RD 562, the consolidation authorities have got no jurisdiction to review his order in as much as there is no provision under the U.P. Consolidation Holding Act or under the Land Revenue Act conferring the review jurisdiction upon the consolidation courts. In this conspectus as above, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned 11.02.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and previous order dated 30.03.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 56 of 2010 is hereby affirmed."

10. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that vide impugned order dated 09.05.2025, in spite of the fact that this Hon’ble Court had affirmed the order dated 30.03.2010, vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015, but for the reasons best known to the D.D.C., Hathras, he has again set aside the said order dated 30.03.2010, which has already attained finality up to the stage of the Hon’ble High Court. However, learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the said order by stating that against the order dated

26.08.1999 passed by S.O.C., Pradhan of village had preferred a revision, and the D.D.C. vide its order dated 30.03.2010 had dismissed the revision and thereby the order dated 26.08.1999 was affirmed; but however, he has placed reliance on an inquiry report dated 09.12.2024 8 (which is being taken on record) to state that the order dated 26.08.1999 was non existing.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said inquiry report dated 09.12.2024 is an ex-parte report and the same has not seen the light of the day nor copy of the same has been provided; and accordingly no reliance can be placed on the same, while this Court has already given finality to he order dated 30.03.2010, which in turn has upheld the order dated 26.08.1999, and the said issue cannot be re- opened now.

12. Learned Standing Counsel has not brought the said inquiry report otherwise also on record, by way of an affidavit to substantiate its argument or plead an alternative case.

13. However, at this stage this Court can only proceed to examine the validity of the impugned order and the intrinsic question of non-joinder of necessary party and as to whether there was an element of collusion between the Gram Sabha and the second party or if at all there was a fraud played upon, to vitiate the entire proceedings.

14. From the pleadings in the writ petition, the dispute is with regard to the land bearing Chak No.34, Gata No.52/2, area 0.053 hectares situated at village Amokhari, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, which was allotted during the course of consolidation proceedings in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.1996 on a valuation of 10 paise, where after it has been alleged that the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records and since the petitioner was in occupation, he continues to be in possession on the aforesaid land till date. He had relied upon Form-23. Against the order dated 15.01.1996, an appeal was preferred which was registered as Case No. 1114/98-99 (Babu Lal vs. Ravindra Kumar and another) under Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and after hearing the parties order dated 26.02.1999/26.08.1999 was passed and it is the said order which was confirmed by dismissal of the revision 9 no.56/2009-10 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr Camp Hathras, vide order dated

30.03.2010.

15. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. the State authorities has been filed, wherein, there is no denial of the fact that the order dated 30.03.2010 was confirmed by this Court in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 or the fact that the consolidation authorities does not have the power to recall/review its orders.

16. It may also be taken note of that initially one Chaturbhuj Singh had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the same was withdrawn and subsequently the newly elected Pradhan-Smt. Neelam Kumari had filed restoration application no.2/25 in revision filed by the erstwhile Pradhan-Sri Chaturbhuj Singh, which was allowed vide order dated 09.05.2025 and where after the impugned order dated

09.05.2025 has been passed setting aside the order dated 30.03.2010 and consequentially the order dated 26.02.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has also been set aside.

17. The application dated 10.01.2025 filed by Smt. Neelam Kumari is also on record and I have perused the same and find that specific averments have been made that though the earlier Pradhan's tenure was from 1995-2000 and thereafter one Nirmala Devi was elected as Pradhan for the period 2000-05, and further one Rakesh Kumar was elected as Pradhan on 02.08.2008 and continued till the year 2010; accordingly, the erstwhile Pradhan Sri Chaturbhuj Singh did not have any authority to withdraw the revision on 06.10.2009.

18. It has been noted by this Court that there has been various instances where an elected Pradhan initiates proceedings raising a cloud over the title of a property and after substantial litigation with the change of Pradhan or just prior to the end of the tenure of the said Pradhan who had raised objections, the proceedings are withdrawn at his behest, 10 giving at times unwarranted benefits to an individual and loss to the Government. It is also to be noted here that Gram Sabha is only the custodian of the land and not the owner and as such it is high time to determine whether the State is a necessary party in proceedings specially when the context is possibly with respect to a land which is a public utility land or a State land. The present case is also a case, where the context is possibly with respect to a land, which was used as a cremation ground and as such this Court finds it appropriate that the question, as to whether State is a necessary party, is to be considered.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that it is the property of the State, which is vested in the Gaon Sabha for the purposes of Management, and it is the Gaon Sabha which acts in accordance with the directions of the State Government. It is no longer res integra that Gaon Sabha itself cannot claim right over the property but it is the State who can do so.

20. My view is fortified by the ratio laid down in the case of Gaon Sabha Raison vs. Additional Collector and others, 1979 RD 124. After the date of vesting of all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh is vested in the State by virtue of Section 4 notification in the gazette; and as declared under Section 59 of the Revenue Code, 2006 that certain kind of land which was vested in the State shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and other local bodies as the ease may be, consequentially it follows that a land which is vested in the Gaon Sabha by the State Government, the right of the Gaon Sabha and the State Government are inseparable and therefore, I do not see any harm if the State Government can be said to be a necessary party.

21. As a matter of fact, the State Government can intervene to protect the rights of the Gaon Sabha; if the Gaon Sabha fails to take action or performs its duties as is also clear from Section 71 and 72 of the Code,

2006. Moreover, I find that the sole reliance and expectation from an elected Pradhan, in given circumstances may not do justification and it 11 may become imperative that the State Government may also be impleaded as a necessary party.

22. In view of the various provision quoted herein above, this Court finds that once the area is notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act then by virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation authorities acquires the right to direct that any land vested in the State Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local body authority duly recorded in its name and in the said circumstances any land which has been categorized as a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the State becomes a necessary party in matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha.

23. I have noticed that in the present case also there is a dispute regarding the land being a public utility land or not and the same is being contested between petitioners and respondents; but in either case the State is a necessary party, this aspect of the matter was not considered by the D.D.C. Hathras while deciding the application of the Land Management Committee dated 16.04.2025. He has also not considered that once the order dated 30.03.2010 has attained finality in view of the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015, then in the said circumstances, can any application for recall/review be said to be maintainable. The ratio of Shivraji (supra) has also not been considered.

24. The Court is conscious of the fact that a plea has been raised by the Gram Sabha/Gram Pradhan stating that no valuation can be made over with respect to a public utility land which in the present case is allegedly the cremation ground and by changing the valuation, the Gram Sabha has suffered a loss of land measuring 0.520 hectares; but the equity demands that once the order dated 30.03.2010 has attained finality, the said fact along with the consideration pertaining to the plea, as to whether, the D.D.C. has powers to review its own order, ought to have been considered along with the plea of the State, as to whether a fraud has been played upon, by not contesting the proceedings. It is also 12 noteworthy that Gaon Sabha only being represented by Pradhan, who keeps on changing and so does the stand, and as such the true owner who is the State, becomes a necessary party

25. In view of the observations made herein above, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras with the following directions:- (i) to take an expeditious decision, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order regarding the application dated 25.10.2021 filed by the Gram Pradhan in Revision No.76/341 under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, against the order dated 30.03.2010; (ii) the revisional court shall also adjudicate on the question of its own jurisdiction, as to whether, a review/recall application can be entertained, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shivraji (supra) and also the judgment and order dated 23.03.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 (Ravendra Singh vs. D.D.C. and others), while considering the plea of the State, pertaining to any fraud being involved; (iii) State may be directed to be impleaded as a necessary party before proceeding in the matter; (iv) Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, for necessary compliance.

25. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed, however, no cost. (Siddharth Nandan,J.) October 16, 2025 S.Prakash SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

affirmed. For ready reference, order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court, is reproduced below: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he has reviewed his earlier order dated 30.03.2010. Point involved in the instant writ petition lies in a narrow compass as to whether consolidation courts have got jurisdiction to review their previous order. Facts culled out from the record, for the specific purpose to the point as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that against the order dated 26.08.1999 passed of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pradhan of village has preferred a revision at belated stage on 09.09.2003. Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 30.03.2010 (annexure no. 3), has 7 dismissed the revision on merits after hearing both the parties. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 30.03.2010, Village Pradhan has moved a restoration / review application dated

05.04.2010. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order impugned dated 11.02.2015, has reviewed his earlier order dated

30.03.2010, consequently, he has allowed the revision filed on behalf of Gram Pradhan and quashed the order dated 26.08.1999 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is no more res integra, as the ratio decided by Hon'ble full Bench of this Court in the case of Shivraji & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others reported in 1997 (88) RD 562, the consolidation authorities have got no jurisdiction to review his order in as much as there is no provision under the U.P. Consolidation Holding Act or under the Land Revenue Act conferring the review jurisdiction upon the consolidation courts. In this conspectus as above, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned 11.02.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and previous order dated 30.03.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 56 of 2010 is hereby affirmed."

10. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that vide impugned order dated 09.05.2025, in spite of the fact that this Hon’ble Court had affirmed the order dated 30.03.2010, vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015, but for the reasons best known to the D.D.C., Hathras, he has again set aside the said order dated 30.03.2010, which has already attained finality up to the stage of the Hon’ble High Court. However, learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the said order by stating that against the order dated

26.08.1999 passed by S.O.C., Pradhan of village had preferred a revision, and the D.D.C. vide its order dated 30.03.2010 had dismissed the revision and thereby the order dated 26.08.1999 was affirmed; but however, he has placed reliance on an inquiry report dated 09.12.2024 8 (which is being taken on record) to state that the order dated 26.08.1999 was non existing.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said inquiry report dated 09.12.2024 is an ex-parte report and the same has not seen the light of the day nor copy of the same has been provided; and accordingly no reliance can be placed on the same, while this Court has already given finality to he order dated 30.03.2010, which in turn has upheld the order dated 26.08.1999, and the said issue cannot be re- opened now.

12. Learned Standing Counsel has not brought the said inquiry report otherwise also on record, by way of an affidavit to substantiate its argument or plead an alternative case.

13. However, at this stage this Court can only proceed to examine the validity of the impugned order and the intrinsic question of non-joinder of necessary party and as to whether there was an element of collusion between the Gram Sabha and the second party or if at all there was a fraud played upon, to vitiate the entire proceedings.

14. From the pleadings in the writ petition, the dispute is with regard to the land bearing Chak No.34, Gata No.52/2, area 0.053 hectares situated at village Amokhari, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, which was allotted during the course of consolidation proceedings in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.1996 on a valuation of 10 paise, where after it has been alleged that the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records and since the petitioner was in occupation, he continues to be in possession on the aforesaid land till date. He had relied upon Form-23. Against the order dated 15.01.1996, an appeal was preferred which was registered as Case No. 1114/98-99 (Babu Lal vs. Ravindra Kumar and another) under Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and after hearing the parties order dated 26.02.1999/26.08.1999 was passed and it is the said order which was confirmed by dismissal of the revision 9 no.56/2009-10 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr Camp Hathras, vide order dated

30.03.2010.

15. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. the State authorities has been filed, wherein, there is no denial of the fact that the order dated 30.03.2010 was confirmed by this Court in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 or the fact that the consolidation authorities does not have the power to recall/review its orders.

16. It may also be taken note of that initially one Chaturbhuj Singh had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the same was withdrawn and subsequently the newly elected Pradhan-Smt. Neelam Kumari had filed restoration application no.2/25 in revision filed by the erstwhile Pradhan-Sri Chaturbhuj Singh, which was allowed vide order dated 09.05.2025 and where after the impugned order dated

09.05.2025 has been passed setting aside the order dated 30.03.2010 and consequentially the order dated 26.02.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has also been set aside.

17. The application dated 10.01.2025 filed by Smt. Neelam Kumari is also on record and I have perused the same and find that specific averments have been made that though the earlier Pradhan's tenure was from 1995-2000 and thereafter one Nirmala Devi was elected as Pradhan for the period 2000-05, and further one Rakesh Kumar was elected as Pradhan on 02.08.2008 and continued till the year 2010; accordingly, the erstwhile Pradhan Sri Chaturbhuj Singh did not have any authority to withdraw the revision on 06.10.2009.

18. It has been noted by this Court that there has been various instances where an elected Pradhan initiates proceedings raising a cloud over the title of a property and after substantial litigation with the change of Pradhan or just prior to the end of the tenure of the said Pradhan who had raised objections, the proceedings are withdrawn at his behest, 10 giving at times unwarranted benefits to an individual and loss to the Government. It is also to be noted here that Gram Sabha is only the custodian of the land and not the owner and as such it is high time to determine whether the State is a necessary party in proceedings specially when the context is possibly with respect to a land which is a public utility land or a State land. The present case is also a case, where the context is possibly with respect to a land, which was used as a cremation ground and as such this Court finds it appropriate that the question, as to whether State is a necessary party, is to be considered.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that it is the property of the State, which is vested in the Gaon Sabha for the purposes of Management, and it is the Gaon Sabha which acts in accordance with the directions of the State Government. It is no longer res integra that Gaon Sabha itself cannot claim right over the property but it is the State who can do so.

20. My view is fortified by the ratio laid down in the case of Gaon Sabha Raison vs. Additional Collector and others, 1979 RD 124. After the date of vesting of all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh is vested in the State by virtue of Section 4 notification in the gazette; and as declared under Section 59 of the Revenue Code, 2006 that certain kind of land which was vested in the State shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and other local bodies as the ease may be, consequentially it follows that a land which is vested in the Gaon Sabha by the State Government, the right of the Gaon Sabha and the State Government are inseparable and therefore, I do not see any harm if the State Government can be said to be a necessary party.

21. As a matter of fact, the State Government can intervene to protect the rights of the Gaon Sabha; if the Gaon Sabha fails to take action or performs its duties as is also clear from Section 71 and 72 of the Code,

2006. Moreover, I find that the sole reliance and expectation from an elected Pradhan, in given circumstances may not do justification and it 11 may become imperative that the State Government may also be impleaded as a necessary party.

22. In view of the various provision quoted herein above, this Court finds that once the area is notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act then by virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation authorities acquires the right to direct that any land vested in the State Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local body authority duly recorded in its name and in the said circumstances any land which has been categorized as a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the State becomes a necessary party in matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha.

23. I have noticed that in the present case also there is a dispute regarding the land being a public utility land or not and the same is being contested between petitioners and respondents; but in either case the State is a necessary party, this aspect of the matter was not considered by the D.D.C. Hathras while deciding the application of the Land Management Committee dated 16.04.2025. He has also not considered that once the order dated 30.03.2010 has attained finality in view of the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015, then in the said circumstances, can any application for recall/review be said to be maintainable. The ratio of Shivraji (supra) has also not been considered.

24. The Court is conscious of the fact that a plea has been raised by the Gram Sabha/Gram Pradhan stating that no valuation can be made over with respect to a public utility land which in the present case is allegedly the cremation ground and by changing the valuation, the Gram Sabha has suffered a loss of land measuring 0.520 hectares; but the equity demands that once the order dated 30.03.2010 has attained finality, the said fact along with the consideration pertaining to the plea, as to whether, the D.D.C. has powers to review its own order, ought to have been considered along with the plea of the State, as to whether a fraud has been played upon, by not contesting the proceedings. It is also 12 noteworthy that Gaon Sabha only being represented by Pradhan, who keeps on changing and so does the stand, and as such the true owner who is the State, becomes a necessary party

25. In view of the observations made herein above, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras with the following directions:- (i) to take an expeditious decision, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order regarding the application dated 25.10.2021 filed by the Gram Pradhan in Revision No.76/341 under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, against the order dated 30.03.2010; (ii) the revisional court shall also adjudicate on the question of its own jurisdiction, as to whether, a review/recall application can be entertained, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shivraji (supra) and also the judgment and order dated 23.03.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 (Ravendra Singh vs. D.D.C. and others), while considering the plea of the State, pertaining to any fraud being involved; (iii) State may be directed to be impleaded as a necessary party before proceeding in the matter; (iv) Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, for necessary compliance.

25. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed, however, no cost. (Siddharth Nandan,J.) October 16, 2025 S.Prakash SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad