High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 as well as Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, Advocate who has filed Power on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case pertains to land situated at Gata No. 90 comprising Plot No. 920, 921, 1321, 1394 and 1400-ka situated at Village Sakra, Pargana Kakori, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. Without going into the detail of the controversy, it is stated in brief that the aforesaid land belonged to Gurdayal and on his death, the name of Smt. Prema Devi @ Prema, his widow, was recorded. After the death of Prema Devi @ Prema, the names of her daughters namely Smt. Champa and Smt. Kamla were mutated in 1998. For some reasons, the name of her third daughter namely Ram Rati was not mutated after the death of Prema Devi @ Prema.

4. It is further stated that a notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was issued on 10.08.2013, subsequent to which objections under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were preferred by various parties. It has been submitted that certain orders were passed on 13.12.2015 with regard to the said property by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. Subsequently, the respondents also filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow staking their claim to the said land on the basis of co- tenancy. The said application was decided on 29.01.2024 by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. In the order dated 29.1.2024, it was recorded that despite notices having been issued to the all the contesting parties/defendants no appearance was put in by them and consequently, the proceedings proceeded ex-parte and were allowed in favour of the applicants/private respondents.

5. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for recall of order dated 29.01.2024. The said application was rejected on 03.10.2024 by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, who recorded the fact that notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued thereby the entire consolidation of operation ceased to exist and on issuance of notification under Section 6(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, he is deluded of any power of passing any order for pending matters and accordingly rejected the application for the petitioners.

6. It is stated that the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 & 03.10.2024 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and he allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.01.2024 & 03.10.2024 and held that after passing of the impugned order under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 all the proceedings under the said act cease to exist and all pending orders/ proceedings would abate and accordingly decided the appeal of the petitioners.

7. It is further stated that the private respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow had filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Lucknow who set aside the order passed in appeal and endorsed the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow held that once the notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued then all the proceedings stand abated.

8. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that even the previous orders of the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow would not have any effect inasmuch as the consolidation operations have ceased to exist on issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and it is not disputed that the proceedings did not attain finality inasmuch as only the objections were decided by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow at the relevant time and appropriate orders were not passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow in appeal and hence till the final orders have been passed in appeal, it cannot be said that the order attained finality and accordingly all the orders stand abated and the dispute, if any, ought to be preferred before the revenue authority under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 who only would have power to decide the dispute as raised by the respondents after termination of the consolidation proceedings.

9. Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 has opposed the petition but does not dispute the fact that the consolidation operations ceased to exist on issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 11.01.2024. He submits that though the order under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was issued by the competent authority on 11.01.2024 but the same was published on 16.03.2024. After arguing at some length, he does not dispute the fact that if the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow had attained finality, all the proceedings will have to stand abated.

10. In this regard, it is relevant to quote from a judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jay Prakash Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation, Meerut and Others, 2014 (11) ADJ 13. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below: "5. Section 6(2) of the Act provides that on issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) in respect of a unit, the said unit ceases to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of notification "subject to the final orders relating to correction of land records." In the case at hand, the objection under Section 9A(2) was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut (the CO). An appeal was filed against the order of the Co which is pending consideration and therefore it can be said that the proceedings have not attained finality, therefore, the dispute between the parties is not covered out by exception carved by sub-section (2) of Section 6.

6. Irrespective of the decision of this writ petition, the controversy between the parties yet to be decided at the appellate stage and therefore since the order of the CO has not attained finality on account of pendency of the appeal itself, the proceedings are liable to be abated once the consolidation operations in the unit have been cancelled.

7. Although this writ petition is not continuation of the proceedings itself and therefore not covered by the exception carved out by Section 6(2), still as already noticed above, irrespective of the decision in the writ petition, which is directed against orders at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings, the dispute has yet to be decided at the appellate stage. There-fore, no useful purpose is going to be served by deciding the writ petition. An interim order is operating in the writ petition. As soon as this order is vacated the proceedings will start before the Settlement Officer Consolidation but such proceedings cannot continue as consolidation operations have been cancelled by the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. The dispute in the instant writ petition, under the circumstances is now rendered a purely academic issue and will not effect the appeal pending between the parties which will have to abate due to the notification under Section 6(1). I therefore see no justification to decide the petition on merits as such decision will be a purely academic pronouncement having no bearing on the lis between the parties. Such lis which will now have to be raised and decided by the competent forum as the forum of the consolidation Courts has ceased to be available to the parties on the cancellation of consolidation operations by the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act."

11. Accordingly, even on the interpretation of Clause- 6(2), learned counsels do not oppose that once the consolidation operations have been ceased by issuance of an order under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 then unless and until final orders have been passed in any controversy, all orders will cease to exist.

12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case, all the orders pertaining to correction of records of Gata No. 90 comprising Plot No. 920, 921, 1321, 1394 and 1400-ka situated at Village Sakra, Pargana Kakori, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow have to be decided by the competent authority under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and any orders passed during the consolidation operations will have no effect.

13. The parties are at liberty to approach the competent authority under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for redressal of their grievance pertaining to the aforesaid land and in case any such suit is filed before the competent authority, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

14. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall co- operate in expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.

15. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 as well as Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, Advocate who has filed Power on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case pertains to land situated at Gata No. 90 comprising Plot No. 920, 921, 1321, 1394 and 1400-ka situated at Village Sakra, Pargana Kakori, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. Without going into the detail of the controversy, it is stated in brief that the aforesaid land belonged to Gurdayal and on his death, the name of Smt. Prema Devi @ Prema, his widow, was recorded. After the death of Prema Devi @ Prema, the names of her daughters namely Smt. Champa and Smt. Kamla were mutated in 1998. For some reasons, the name of her third daughter namely Ram Rati was not mutated after the death of Prema Devi @ Prema.

4. It is further stated that a notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was issued on 10.08.2013, subsequent to which objections under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were preferred by various parties. It has been submitted that certain orders were passed on 13.12.2015 with regard to the said property by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. Subsequently, the respondents also filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow staking their claim to the said land on the basis of co- tenancy. The said application was decided on 29.01.2024 by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. In the order dated 29.1.2024, it was recorded that despite notices having been issued to the all the contesting parties/defendants no appearance was put in by them and consequently, the proceedings proceeded ex-parte and were allowed in favour of the applicants/private respondents.

5. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for recall of order dated 29.01.2024. The said application was rejected on 03.10.2024 by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, who recorded the fact that notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued thereby the entire consolidation of operation ceased to exist and on issuance of notification under Section 6(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, he is deluded of any power of passing any order for pending matters and accordingly rejected the application for the petitioners.

6. It is stated that the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 & 03.10.2024 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and he allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.01.2024 & 03.10.2024 and held that after passing of the impugned order under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 all the proceedings under the said act cease to exist and all pending orders/ proceedings would abate and accordingly decided the appeal of the petitioners.

7. It is further stated that the private respondents being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow had filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Lucknow who set aside the order passed in appeal and endorsed the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow held that once the notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued then all the proceedings stand abated.

8. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that even the previous orders of the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow would not have any effect inasmuch as the consolidation operations have ceased to exist on issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and it is not disputed that the proceedings did not attain finality inasmuch as only the objections were decided by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow at the relevant time and appropriate orders were not passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow in appeal and hence till the final orders have been passed in appeal, it cannot be said that the order attained finality and accordingly all the orders stand abated and the dispute, if any, ought to be preferred before the revenue authority under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 who only would have power to decide the dispute as raised by the respondents after termination of the consolidation proceedings.

9. Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 has opposed the petition but does not dispute the fact that the consolidation operations ceased to exist on issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 11.01.2024. He submits that though the order under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was issued by the competent authority on 11.01.2024 but the same was published on 16.03.2024. After arguing at some length, he does not dispute the fact that if the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow had attained finality, all the proceedings will have to stand abated.

10. In this regard, it is relevant to quote from a judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jay Prakash Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation, Meerut and Others, 2014 (11) ADJ 13. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below: "5. Section 6(2) of the Act provides that on issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) in respect of a unit, the said unit ceases to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of notification "subject to the final orders relating to correction of land records." In the case at hand, the objection under Section 9A(2) was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut (the CO). An appeal was filed against the order of the Co which is pending consideration and therefore it can be said that the proceedings have not attained finality, therefore, the dispute between the parties is not covered out by exception carved by sub-section (2) of Section 6.

6. Irrespective of the decision of this writ petition, the controversy between the parties yet to be decided at the appellate stage and therefore since the order of the CO has not attained finality on account of pendency of the appeal itself, the proceedings are liable to be abated once the consolidation operations in the unit have been cancelled.

7. Although this writ petition is not continuation of the proceedings itself and therefore not covered by the exception carved out by Section 6(2), still as already noticed above, irrespective of the decision in the writ petition, which is directed against orders at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings, the dispute has yet to be decided at the appellate stage. There-fore, no useful purpose is going to be served by deciding the writ petition. An interim order is operating in the writ petition. As soon as this order is vacated the proceedings will start before the Settlement Officer Consolidation but such proceedings cannot continue as consolidation operations have been cancelled by the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. The dispute in the instant writ petition, under the circumstances is now rendered a purely academic issue and will not effect the appeal pending between the parties which will have to abate due to the notification under Section 6(1). I therefore see no justification to decide the petition on merits as such decision will be a purely academic pronouncement having no bearing on the lis between the parties. Such lis which will now have to be raised and decided by the competent forum as the forum of the consolidation Courts has ceased to be available to the parties on the cancellation of consolidation operations by the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act."

11. Accordingly, even on the interpretation of Clause- 6(2), learned counsels do not oppose that once the consolidation operations have been ceased by issuance of an order under Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 then unless and until final orders have been passed in any controversy, all orders will cease to exist.

12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case, all the orders pertaining to correction of records of Gata No. 90 comprising Plot No. 920, 921, 1321, 1394 and 1400-ka situated at Village Sakra, Pargana Kakori, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow have to be decided by the competent authority under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and any orders passed during the consolidation operations will have no effect.

13. The parties are at liberty to approach the competent authority under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 for redressal of their grievance pertaining to the aforesaid land and in case any such suit is filed before the competent authority, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

14. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall co- operate in expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.

15. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench