High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Shri Sankat Mochan Hanuman Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Vishwanath Das Chela Laxman Das And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Nath Pandey,Harendra Prasad Singh,Hemlata Verma,Jitesh Yadav,Phool Badan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Patanjali Chaturvedi Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Govind Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. Sri Patanjali Chaturvedi, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 7, same is taken on record.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 30.07.2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya in proceedings under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as order dated 31.12.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in appeal No. 258 and also order dated 09.04.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, where all the revenue authorities have rejected the contention of the petitioners.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had filed suit under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, stating that the suit was filed in the name of Sankat Mochan Hanuman Ji Trust through worshiper Lakshman Das, claiming that Gata 3 area 3 Bigha 09 Biswa, situated in Village - Asif Bagh Pathak Pur, Pargana - Haveli Awadh, Tehsil and District - Faizabad, was initially recorded in the name of Mandir Ram Das Chela Mahant Govind Das Kaum Bairagi who was owner and in possession of the said land and even his name finds mention in the Khautani pertaining to Fasli year 1344. It was claimed that after death of Mahant Govind Das, 52 years prior name of worshiper and his successors were duly entered into the revenue records and accordingly he is bhoomidhar of the said land.

4. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that plaintiff was minor and consequently could not file suit previously and accordingly prayed for being declared as the bhoomidhar of the aforesaid land. The trial Court had framed eight issues, one of the issue pertaining to maintainability of the suit in the light of provisions contained under Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It was noticed that the said land is recorded as "Charagah" which is Gaon Sabha land and such a land cannot be entered in the name of any other individual as bhoomidhar. The trial Court was of the view that as per Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, would act as a bar against the petitioners and hence issue was decided against the petitioners.

5. Another issue framed was with regard to Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was stated that since claim has been made by the petitioners when consolidation operations had been done in the said village on two separate occasions and petitioners did not claim their title or ownership before the consolidation authorities in either of the two consolidation proceedings and consequently as per provisions of Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, presumption on correctness of the findings recorded during consolidation proceedings and because of the fact that petitioners had not raised any objection during consolidation proceedings, their names after such substantial length of time, would not be mutated.

6. It was further recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner have not been able to produce any documentary evidence in support of their submissions and accordingly, upheld the objections raised by the respondents and rejected the suit. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, who also up held the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and dismissed the appeal.

7. Second appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue also met with same fate by order dated 09.04.2025. While rejecting the second appeal, two substantial questions of law were framed by the Board of Revenue. Regarding first issue pertaining to Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and second issue was with regard bar of Section 132 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. With regard to both the issues findings were returned against petitioners. With regard to the claim of the petitioners that name of Guru Ramdas was recorded with effect from 1944 Fasli onwards and the petitioners have not been able to produce any document in this regard and consequently his name over the aforesaid land has been rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the said land was recorded as "bagh' (orchard) and therefore could not form part of consolidation operations inasmuch as, it is excluded from the "lands" as per Section 3 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Though such assertion has been made by him in suit and a query was made to the petitioners as to indicate same in the revenue records or that any issue was raised by him in the suit, first appeal or second appeal, this Court could not find any assertion or material filed by the petitioners before any of the authorities below which could indicate that the said land was ever recorded as "bagh" (orchard) and consequently, two consolidation proceedings have been concluded. As per the Consolidation of Holdings Act where no objections were filed by the petitioners and therefore, this Court do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioners.

9. With regard to reasoning given by all the revenue Courts that despite two consolidation operations having been taken place during interregnum period and petitioners do not raised objection with regard to said land, the only explanation is that the petitioners were not aware of the consolidation proceedings. Such an answer given by the petitioners cannot be entertained inasmuch as, adequate notice is given to all the persons concerned at various stages of consolidation proceedings as prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, submission of the petitioners that they were not aware of the consolidation proceedings which took place on two occasions is not acceptable.

10. This Court has perused all the orders as well as pleadings made in all matters and find that there was no objection or material placed by the petitioners claiming their title over the disputed property. This Court do not find any ground for interfering with the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who has stated that though the petitioners have claimed that name of Mahant Gopaldas was duly recorded in 1334 Fasli and continued subsequently, but it seems that no such document was filed by the petitioners before any of the authorities below and even if it was correct that document was adduced, we do not find that the ground raised by the petitioners either in the first appeal or second appeal that findings recorded in this regard are perverse and require interference.

11. Even in the present writ petition, Annexure 7 has been filed indicating same to be a copy of the khatauni of 1344 Fasli, the said document is typed copy and said document ought to have been proved in the suit proceedings before any right could be adjudicated in favour of petitioners. Such material cannot be tested or examined for the first time in writ jurisdiction.

12. We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court or first appellate Court or second appellate Court.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Shri Sankat Mochan Hanuman Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Vishwanath Das Chela Laxman Das And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Nath Pandey,Harendra Prasad Singh,Hemlata Verma,Jitesh Yadav,Phool Badan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Patanjali Chaturvedi Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Govind Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. Sri Patanjali Chaturvedi, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 7, same is taken on record.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 30.07.2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya in proceedings under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as order dated 31.12.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in appeal No. 258 and also order dated 09.04.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, where all the revenue authorities have rejected the contention of the petitioners.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners had filed suit under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, stating that the suit was filed in the name of Sankat Mochan Hanuman Ji Trust through worshiper Lakshman Das, claiming that Gata 3 area 3 Bigha 09 Biswa, situated in Village - Asif Bagh Pathak Pur, Pargana - Haveli Awadh, Tehsil and District - Faizabad, was initially recorded in the name of Mandir Ram Das Chela Mahant Govind Das Kaum Bairagi who was owner and in possession of the said land and even his name finds mention in the Khautani pertaining to Fasli year 1344. It was claimed that after death of Mahant Govind Das, 52 years prior name of worshiper and his successors were duly entered into the revenue records and accordingly he is bhoomidhar of the said land.

4. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that plaintiff was minor and consequently could not file suit previously and accordingly prayed for being declared as the bhoomidhar of the aforesaid land. The trial Court had framed eight issues, one of the issue pertaining to maintainability of the suit in the light of provisions contained under Section 132 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It was noticed that the said land is recorded as "Charagah" which is Gaon Sabha land and such a land cannot be entered in the name of any other individual as bhoomidhar. The trial Court was of the view that as per Section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, would act as a bar against the petitioners and hence issue was decided against the petitioners.

5. Another issue framed was with regard to Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was stated that since claim has been made by the petitioners when consolidation operations had been done in the said village on two separate occasions and petitioners did not claim their title or ownership before the consolidation authorities in either of the two consolidation proceedings and consequently as per provisions of Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, presumption on correctness of the findings recorded during consolidation proceedings and because of the fact that petitioners had not raised any objection during consolidation proceedings, their names after such substantial length of time, would not be mutated.

6. It was further recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner have not been able to produce any documentary evidence in support of their submissions and accordingly, upheld the objections raised by the respondents and rejected the suit. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, who also up held the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and dismissed the appeal.

7. Second appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue also met with same fate by order dated 09.04.2025. While rejecting the second appeal, two substantial questions of law were framed by the Board of Revenue. Regarding first issue pertaining to Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and second issue was with regard bar of Section 132 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. With regard to both the issues findings were returned against petitioners. With regard to the claim of the petitioners that name of Guru Ramdas was recorded with effect from 1944 Fasli onwards and the petitioners have not been able to produce any document in this regard and consequently his name over the aforesaid land has been rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the said land was recorded as "bagh' (orchard) and therefore could not form part of consolidation operations inasmuch as, it is excluded from the "lands" as per Section 3 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Though such assertion has been made by him in suit and a query was made to the petitioners as to indicate same in the revenue records or that any issue was raised by him in the suit, first appeal or second appeal, this Court could not find any assertion or material filed by the petitioners before any of the authorities below which could indicate that the said land was ever recorded as "bagh" (orchard) and consequently, two consolidation proceedings have been concluded. As per the Consolidation of Holdings Act where no objections were filed by the petitioners and therefore, this Court do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioners.

9. With regard to reasoning given by all the revenue Courts that despite two consolidation operations having been taken place during interregnum period and petitioners do not raised objection with regard to said land, the only explanation is that the petitioners were not aware of the consolidation proceedings. Such an answer given by the petitioners cannot be entertained inasmuch as, adequate notice is given to all the persons concerned at various stages of consolidation proceedings as prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, submission of the petitioners that they were not aware of the consolidation proceedings which took place on two occasions is not acceptable.

10. This Court has perused all the orders as well as pleadings made in all matters and find that there was no objection or material placed by the petitioners claiming their title over the disputed property. This Court do not find any ground for interfering with the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who has stated that though the petitioners have claimed that name of Mahant Gopaldas was duly recorded in 1334 Fasli and continued subsequently, but it seems that no such document was filed by the petitioners before any of the authorities below and even if it was correct that document was adduced, we do not find that the ground raised by the petitioners either in the first appeal or second appeal that findings recorded in this regard are perverse and require interference.

11. Even in the present writ petition, Annexure 7 has been filed indicating same to be a copy of the khatauni of 1344 Fasli, the said document is typed copy and said document ought to have been proved in the suit proceedings before any right could be adjudicated in favour of petitioners. Such material cannot be tested or examined for the first time in writ jurisdiction.

12. We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court or first appellate Court or second appellate Court.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench