Jhuri Prasad v. Vidyawati and others) and it is during the pendency of the said revision that

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while notice on behalf of respondent No.3 Gram Sabha has been accepted by Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondent No.4 is dispensed with

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 claiming herself to be the widow of original tenure holder Kishor son of Rikhai, resident of Village and Post Patihan, Pargana and Tehsil Paila, District Kheri claiming that the said disputed land was allotted to Kishor by way of lease in 1976 and after expiry of 10 years he has been declared as Bhumidhar of the chak No.109.

4. The dispute was initiated by opposite party No.4 claiming that the disputed land has been purchased by him from Kishor. After the said sale deed he did not move any application for mutation in the revenue court and filed his objections for the first time before the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act, 1953. The consolidation Officer decided the matter by means of order dated 26.9.2007 in favour of respondent No.4 mutating the land in his favour against which the petitioner had filed recall application which was also rejected on 9.2.2023.

5. Against the order 9.2.2023 the petitioner had preferred a appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11(1) of U.P. C.H.Act and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner by means of order dated 26.10.2023 but it has been submitted that against the order dated 26.10.2023 opposite party No.4 had filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.556/202354104300001212 (Jhuri Prasad Vs. Vidyawati and others) and it is during the pendency of the said revision that D.G.C. (Revenue) filed an application on 27.2.2024 for recall of order dated 26.10.2023 on the ground that the said disputed land falls under category 4 land and which was allotted in favour of Kishor only for agricultural purposes and he could not have sold the land without prior permission of Assistant Collector, therefore, the said property would revert back to the State.

6. In the recall application it further stated that the petitioner had not made State as a party and, therefore, the State was not put to notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the application on 19.4.2024 setting aside his previous order dated 26.10.2023. It is against the order dated 19.4.2024 that the petitioner had preferred a revision which has been rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of the impugned order dated 21.1.2025. Both the revisions preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.4.2024 as well as revision preferred by opposite party No.4 against the order dated 26.10.2023 were decided by common order which has been impugned in this petition.

7. The only argument raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned order is that the State was at liberty to file revision against order dated 26.10.2023 and they could not have been heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation and submits that once the revision has been preferred by opposite party No.4 then the State does not have any right to move application for recall.

8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other had, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that as considered above the said land was under category 4 and was given to Kishor only for the purpose of agriculture and in case he wanted to sell the land he had to obtain prior permission of Assistant Collector and without obtaining the same he sold the said land in favour of opposite party No.4. Thus, Kishor had committed illegality and the said sale deed was illegal and deserves to be declared as void and the land would also revert back to the State. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the provision of Section 157 AA of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act which reads as under:- "157AA. [ Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference- (a) land less agricultural labourer; (b) marginal farmer; (c) small farmer; and (d) a person other than a person referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c). (2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in Clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in Clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in Clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section if a person referred to in Clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (d) of the said sub-section in the same order of preference :- (a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate; (b) secondly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate; (c) thirdly, if no person referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate. (3) If no person referred to in sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in sub-sections (1) and (2). (4) No transfer under this sections shall lie made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. (5) [ A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour.]"

9. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that objections were filed by the petitioner when name of opposite party No. 4 was mutated in the revenue records. There is again no denial of the fact that entire mutation proceedings had attained finality. They had not participated in the proceeding nor put to any notice by way of authorities. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the State had moved an application for recall order dated 27.2.2024 seeking to recall the order dated 26.10.2023 where the order impugned has been passed without impleading the State which was a necessary party. If an order has been passed without impleading necessary party it renders the proceedings arbitrary having been decided without participation of necessary parties and the affected party will have the right to move application for recall of the said order within a prescribed time, therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner are without merit. In the meanwhile against order dated 26.10.2023 the opposite party No.4 had filed a revision for summoning the lower court record, the record has been summoned. We find that neither has the order been annexed nor is there any specific statement that the record has been summoned by the Deputy Director and was available before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation at the time when he proceeded to decide the application for recall and in absence of any substantial material or evidence and from perusal of the order, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

10. In light of the above, once the recall application has been filed and the order has been passed the validity of the said order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been presumed. The petitioner should have filed record at the time of passing of the impugned orders and in absence of production of the record the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

11. In light of the above, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 19.4.2024 and also the impugned order dated 21.1.2025 upholding the order dated 19.4.2024. In case, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to rights pertaining to the other hand, he is at liberty to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction with regard to the same as has been held by this Court in numerous cases.

12. In light of what has been discussed above, this Court does not find any ground for interference. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while notice on behalf of respondent No.3 Gram Sabha has been accepted by Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondent No.4 is dispensed with

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 claiming herself to be the widow of original tenure holder Kishor son of Rikhai, resident of Village and Post Patihan, Pargana and Tehsil Paila, District Kheri claiming that the said disputed land was allotted to Kishor by way of lease in 1976 and after expiry of 10 years he has been declared as Bhumidhar of the chak No.109.

4. The dispute was initiated by opposite party No.4 claiming that the disputed land has been purchased by him from Kishor. After the said sale deed he did not move any application for mutation in the revenue court and filed his objections for the first time before the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act, 1953. The consolidation Officer decided the matter by means of order dated 26.9.2007 in favour of respondent No.4 mutating the land in his favour against which the petitioner had filed recall application which was also rejected on 9.2.2023.

5. Against the order 9.2.2023 the petitioner had preferred a appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11(1) of U.P. C.H.Act and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner by means of order dated 26.10.2023 but it has been submitted that against the order dated 26.10.2023 opposite party No.4 had filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.556/202354104300001212 (Jhuri Prasad Vs. Vidyawati and others) and it is during the pendency of the said revision that D.G.C. (Revenue) filed an application on 27.2.2024 for recall of order dated 26.10.2023 on the ground that the said disputed land falls under category 4 land and which was allotted in favour of Kishor only for agricultural purposes and he could not have sold the land without prior permission of Assistant Collector, therefore, the said property would revert back to the State.

6. In the recall application it further stated that the petitioner had not made State as a party and, therefore, the State was not put to notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the application on 19.4.2024 setting aside his previous order dated 26.10.2023. It is against the order dated 19.4.2024 that the petitioner had preferred a revision which has been rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of the impugned order dated 21.1.2025. Both the revisions preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.4.2024 as well as revision preferred by opposite party No.4 against the order dated 26.10.2023 were decided by common order which has been impugned in this petition.

7. The only argument raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned order is that the State was at liberty to file revision against order dated 26.10.2023 and they could not have been heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation and submits that once the revision has been preferred by opposite party No.4 then the State does not have any right to move application for recall.

8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other had, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that as considered above the said land was under category 4 and was given to Kishor only for the purpose of agriculture and in case he wanted to sell the land he had to obtain prior permission of Assistant Collector and without obtaining the same he sold the said land in favour of opposite party No.4. Thus, Kishor had committed illegality and the said sale deed was illegal and deserves to be declared as void and the land would also revert back to the State. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the provision of Section 157 AA of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act which reads as under:- "157AA. [ Restrictions on transfer by member of Scheduled Castes becoming Bhumidhar under Section 131-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 157-A and without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no person belonging to Scheduled Caste having become a Bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 131-B shall have the right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person other than a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste and such transfer, if any, shall be in the following order of preference- (a) land less agricultural labourer; (b) marginal farmer; (c) small farmer; and (d) a person other than a person referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c). (2) A transfer in favour of a person referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be made in order of preference given below. If a person referred to in Clause (a) is not available then transfer may be made to a person referred to in Clause (b) of the said sub-section and if a person referred to in Clause (b) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (c) of the said sub-section if a person referred to in Clause (c) is also not available then to a person referred to in Clause (d) of the said sub-section in the same order of preference :- (a) first, to the resident of the village where the land is situate; (b) secondly, if no person referred to in Clause (a) is available, to the resident of any other village within the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate; (c) thirdly, if no person referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) is available, to the resident of a village adjoining the Panchayat area comprising the village where the land is situate. (3) If no person referred to in sub-section (1) belonging to a Scheduled Caste is available, the land may be transferred to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the order of preference given in sub-sections (1) and (2). (4) No transfer under this sections shall lie made except with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector concerned. (5) [ A transferee of land under sub-section (1) shall have no right to transfer the land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease before the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of transfer in his favour.]"

9. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that objections were filed by the petitioner when name of opposite party No. 4 was mutated in the revenue records. There is again no denial of the fact that entire mutation proceedings had attained finality. They had not participated in the proceeding nor put to any notice by way of authorities. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the State had moved an application for recall order dated 27.2.2024 seeking to recall the order dated 26.10.2023 where the order impugned has been passed without impleading the State which was a necessary party. If an order has been passed without impleading necessary party it renders the proceedings arbitrary having been decided without participation of necessary parties and the affected party will have the right to move application for recall of the said order within a prescribed time, therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner are without merit. In the meanwhile against order dated 26.10.2023 the opposite party No.4 had filed a revision for summoning the lower court record, the record has been summoned. We find that neither has the order been annexed nor is there any specific statement that the record has been summoned by the Deputy Director and was available before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation at the time when he proceeded to decide the application for recall and in absence of any substantial material or evidence and from perusal of the order, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

10. In light of the above, once the recall application has been filed and the order has been passed the validity of the said order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been presumed. The petitioner should have filed record at the time of passing of the impugned orders and in absence of production of the record the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

11. In light of the above, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 19.4.2024 and also the impugned order dated 21.1.2025 upholding the order dated 19.4.2024. In case, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to rights pertaining to the other hand, he is at liberty to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction with regard to the same as has been held by this Court in numerous cases.

12. In light of what has been discussed above, this Court does not find any ground for interference. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench