Counsel for Petitioner(s) vs Brij Raj Tripathi, Naqibullah Khan,

Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Dubey, petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. learned counsel for

2. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

3. The delay in filing the application for recall of order dated

11.10.2022 is condoned. C. M. Application No.8 of 2022 for recall of the order dated 11.10.2022.

1. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

2. Order dated 11.10.2022 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number. C. M. Application No.9 of 2022 for substitution of petitioner No.2. 2 WRIB No. 2963 of 1983

1. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

2. Let legal heirs of petitioner No.2 be substituted as petitioner No.s 2/1 and 2/2 during course of the day. Order on memo of the petition.

1. Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed against the orders dated

16.2.1983 and 13.4.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of the powers under Section 48 (3) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to gata No.s 6843, 6846 and 6848 situated in Village Nanpara Dehati, Nanpara, District Bahraich, which were the original holdings of Bhagwati Prasad. It has further been submitted that the said land was subject matter of the proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and plot No.s 6843, 6846 and 6848 were declared as surplus by means of the order dated 31.8.1974 passed by the Prescribed Authority. It further seems that the despite the said land having been declared surplus cognizance of the said fact was not taken by the revenue officials and the land continued to be shown in the name of the tenure holders. It is during the consolidation proceedings that the chaks were carved out even on the land which were declared surplus. It has been stated the Prescribed Authority (Consolidation) vide order dated 31.8.1974 declared 18-195 acre as surplus from the khata of Raja Nanpara Sarik Sadat Ali Khan. It is further submitted that it is during implementation of the order dated

31.8.1974 in the revenue records that it was found that the land which has been declared surplus has been wrongly entered in the gatas of certain persons including the gatas of father of the petitioner and the said land was deducted from the khata of the petitioner to remove the errors which had crept in during the consolidation proceedings and reference was prepared by Assistant Consolidation 3 WRIB No. 2963 of 1983 Officer on 24.1.1976 and the same was referred to the Consolidation Officers, who has forwarded the reference to Deputy Director of Consolidation who after giving the notice to all the parties has passed the impugned order dated 13.4.1976. The petitioner had preferred an application for recall on 15.3.1981 which was also rejected on 16.2.1983.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation by stating that the land which was settled during the consolidation operations should be reverted back to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the proceedings which already stood concluded during the consolidation proceedings.

4. With regard to the fact that the said land which has already been declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated

31.8.1974 how could be it allotted during consolidation proceedings, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that once the land has been declared to be surplus in proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act then the said land vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances but in the present case despite the said land being declared to be surplus continued in the revenue records in the hands of the tenure holders.

5. As soon as the consolidation authorities came to know about the said anomalies the reference was created for rectification and the same has been done by means of the impugned orders. It has further come on record that father of the petitioner was allotted chaks in gata No.6799 M area 0.397, 6800 M area 0.135, 6801 area 0.125, 6802 area 0.155, 6803 area 0.163, 6804 are 0.123, 6805 area 0.328 total area 1.426 acres. Accordingly, the father of the petitioner was already in possession of the aforesaid land. It has further come on record that new gata No.1230 area 1.115 acre was given to father of the petitioner in lieu of the land which has been deducted surplus and, therefore, this Court does not find that after passing of the impugned order any loss has been caused to the petitioners with 4 WRIB No. 2963 of 1983 regard to his holdings.

6. There is no dispute that surplus land cannot be subject matter of allotment during consolidation proceedings and, therefore, no right can be claimed on any such land by any individual and, hence, the claim of petitioner is baseless.

7. No other ground has been urged in assailing the impugned orders.

8. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. December 3, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Dubey, petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. learned counsel for

2. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

3. The delay in filing the application for recall of order dated

11.10.2022 is condoned. C. M. Application No.8 of 2022 for recall of the order dated 11.10.2022.

1. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

2. Order dated 11.10.2022 is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number. C. M. Application No.9 of 2022 for substitution of petitioner No.2. 2 WRIB No. 2963 of 1983

1. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

2. Let legal heirs of petitioner No.2 be substituted as petitioner No.s 2/1 and 2/2 during course of the day. Order on memo of the petition.

1. Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed against the orders dated

16.2.1983 and 13.4.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of the powers under Section 48 (3) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to gata No.s 6843, 6846 and 6848 situated in Village Nanpara Dehati, Nanpara, District Bahraich, which were the original holdings of Bhagwati Prasad. It has further been submitted that the said land was subject matter of the proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and plot No.s 6843, 6846 and 6848 were declared as surplus by means of the order dated 31.8.1974 passed by the Prescribed Authority. It further seems that the despite the said land having been declared surplus cognizance of the said fact was not taken by the revenue officials and the land continued to be shown in the name of the tenure holders. It is during the consolidation proceedings that the chaks were carved out even on the land which were declared surplus. It has been stated the Prescribed Authority (Consolidation) vide order dated 31.8.1974 declared 18-195 acre as surplus from the khata of Raja Nanpara Sarik Sadat Ali Khan. It is further submitted that it is during implementation of the order dated

31.8.1974 in the revenue records that it was found that the land which has been declared surplus has been wrongly entered in the gatas of certain persons including the gatas of father of the petitioner and the said land was deducted from the khata of the petitioner to remove the errors which had crept in during the consolidation proceedings and reference was prepared by Assistant Consolidation 3 WRIB No. 2963 of 1983 Officer on 24.1.1976 and the same was referred to the Consolidation Officers, who has forwarded the reference to Deputy Director of Consolidation who after giving the notice to all the parties has passed the impugned order dated 13.4.1976. The petitioner had preferred an application for recall on 15.3.1981 which was also rejected on 16.2.1983.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation by stating that the land which was settled during the consolidation operations should be reverted back to the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the proceedings which already stood concluded during the consolidation proceedings.

4. With regard to the fact that the said land which has already been declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated

31.8.1974 how could be it allotted during consolidation proceedings, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that once the land has been declared to be surplus in proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act then the said land vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances but in the present case despite the said land being declared to be surplus continued in the revenue records in the hands of the tenure holders.

5. As soon as the consolidation authorities came to know about the said anomalies the reference was created for rectification and the same has been done by means of the impugned orders. It has further come on record that father of the petitioner was allotted chaks in gata No.6799 M area 0.397, 6800 M area 0.135, 6801 area 0.125, 6802 area 0.155, 6803 area 0.163, 6804 are 0.123, 6805 area 0.328 total area 1.426 acres. Accordingly, the father of the petitioner was already in possession of the aforesaid land. It has further come on record that new gata No.1230 area 1.115 acre was given to father of the petitioner in lieu of the land which has been deducted surplus and, therefore, this Court does not find that after passing of the impugned order any loss has been caused to the petitioners with 4 WRIB No. 2963 of 1983 regard to his holdings.

6. There is no dispute that surplus land cannot be subject matter of allotment during consolidation proceedings and, therefore, no right can be claimed on any such land by any individual and, hence, the claim of petitioner is baseless.

7. No other ground has been urged in assailing the impugned orders.

8. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. December 3, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench