High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Gauri Shankar Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records on 26.08.1997 in compliance of order dated 13.08.1987 passed by Additional Consolidation officer in proceedings U/s 9A(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been submitted that after 33 years of the order dated 05.01.1990 passed by Consolidation officer, Bahraich respondent No. 4 filed an application for recall of the order dated 05.01.1990 on 15.12.2022 before the Consolidation Officer, Bhinga, District Sharavasti along with an application U/S 5 of Limitation Act.

4. The said objections were rejected by means of order dated 27.08.2024 against which an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by respondent No. 4. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has allowed the appeal by order dated 21.01.2025 and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is against the order dated 21.01.2025 that the petitioner had filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by means of order dated 16.04.2025.

5. In the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, it has merely been recorded that the authorities below had given full opportunity of hearing to all the parties and all the issues raised by them have been duly considered and accordingly in such circumstances on the ground of maintainability the revision has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the revisional order which has been merely concluded in one short paragraph, neither the case has been discussed nor the grounds raised by the petitioner assailing the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation has been discussed or considered. It has been submitted that it is shear non-application of mind of the Dy. Director of Consolidation which has resulted in passing of the impugned order. He submits that the Dy. Director of Consolidation exercising judicial / quasi judicial power was duly bound to pass a reasoned and speaking order considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner in assailing the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. By merely rejecting the application without considering any of the grounds he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, accordingly he submits that the order deserves to be interference under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

8. Considering the rival contention specially the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, it is evident that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has not even looked into the factual matrix of the case nor even considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in assailing the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.01.2025. It was incumbent upon before the revisional authority to have duly considered the grounds raised in the revision as well as considered the objections of respondent and to give reasons either to accept or reject the said contention, but by merely stating that parties are given full opportunity of hearing by the authorities below would not suffice the test of judicial review by the revisional authority and accordingly for the reasons above, the order dated 16.04.2025 is set aside.

9. The matter is remanded back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties and to consider all the grounds raised in challenge made to the appellate order dated 21.01.2025.

10. This Court is conscious of the repeated orders being brought to its knowledge passed by the various revenue authorities which lacks basic ingredients of a judicial order and also that valuable rights to a large section of the population are being adjudicated which require dealing of such matters by a legally trained person who has full knowledge of the revenue laws and can duly apply the relevant laws to the facts of the case while deciding the said matters either at the original, appellate stage or in the revisional stage".

11. A perusal of the present impugned order clearly indicates non-application of mind and clearly does not indicate that the person dealing with the said case is adept and deciding judicial matter.

12. Many High Courts have time and again issued diversions for training of revenue and other administrative officer exercising judicial functions. Recently, High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of Uamkant harma V. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Raj. 2553, has issued the following diversions:- "25. Hence, it is the high time and right time to establish an "Administrative Judicial Academy" for such Officers of Administrative Services. The need to impart training to such Officers, both 'pre-service' and 'in-service', has been felt for a long time and has been neglected by the Government of Rajasthan so far, having disastrous consequences to development of State and justice to public at large. Training course for the Officers of Administrative Services is considered imperative to improve their efficiency. Some kind of training is necessary and useful to enhance their legal acumen and knowledge. Officers must be trained in framing issues, recording evidence presented by the litigating parties, and drafting judgments at both trial and appellate levels. They should also imparted training for enhancing the art of writing interlocutory orders. They should be familiarized with the various stages of a suit and the procedures outlined in the CPC. Furthermore, along with methods for disposing of the matters at each stage.

27. .The following steps are required to be taken by the State Government for the benefit of the Officers posted at the Revenue Courts and the Revenue Appellate Courts:- i. Establish an Administrative Judicial Academy for organizing mandatory training program for the newly appointed and in- service Administrative Officers. ii. Conducting research on judicial reforms, management and access to justice. iii.Promoting judicial innovation, through seminars, colloquium, and workshops. iv. Develop a comprehensive curriculum that blends theory with practical training of procedural laws, including framing of issues, recording of evidence, and writing judgments, mediation and the use of technology in Courts. v. Sensatizing the Officers to take every possible steps for expeditious disposal of the matters, without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments and make all possible endeavours for speedy disposal of the cases.

28. In an age where justice must not only be done, but seem to be done swiftly and fairly, a well-training administration is essential and the same is need of the hour. The role of Administrative Judicial Academy for practical training of the Presiding Officers posted in the Revenue Courts and the Revenue Appellate Courts would certainly play a vital role in shaping competent, ethical and technology savvy officers in more crucial ways than ever. With strategic reforms, increased resources and a learner-centric approach, such academy can emerge as a torch bearer in their judicial education and play a transformative role in the administration of justice delivery system."

13. This Court in the said circumstances direct the Chairman Board of Revenue as well as by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue to consider whether such authorities are being given adequate training so as to equipped them to discharge the statutory duties under the U.P. Revenue Code as well as the Consolidation of Holdings Act. They should immediately frame a policy and take adequate steps for effective training of such persons. They should further review their work periodically and regularly make adequate changes and take adequate steps to enhance their efficiency whenever require. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Chairman, Board of Revenue and Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for necessary action.

14. With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Gauri Shankar Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted that the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records on 26.08.1997 in compliance of order dated 13.08.1987 passed by Additional Consolidation officer in proceedings U/s 9A(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been submitted that after 33 years of the order dated 05.01.1990 passed by Consolidation officer, Bahraich respondent No. 4 filed an application for recall of the order dated 05.01.1990 on 15.12.2022 before the Consolidation Officer, Bhinga, District Sharavasti along with an application U/S 5 of Limitation Act.

4. The said objections were rejected by means of order dated 27.08.2024 against which an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by respondent No. 4. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has allowed the appeal by order dated 21.01.2025 and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is against the order dated 21.01.2025 that the petitioner had filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by means of order dated 16.04.2025.

5. In the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, it has merely been recorded that the authorities below had given full opportunity of hearing to all the parties and all the issues raised by them have been duly considered and accordingly in such circumstances on the ground of maintainability the revision has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the revisional order which has been merely concluded in one short paragraph, neither the case has been discussed nor the grounds raised by the petitioner assailing the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation has been discussed or considered. It has been submitted that it is shear non-application of mind of the Dy. Director of Consolidation which has resulted in passing of the impugned order. He submits that the Dy. Director of Consolidation exercising judicial / quasi judicial power was duly bound to pass a reasoned and speaking order considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner in assailing the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. By merely rejecting the application without considering any of the grounds he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, accordingly he submits that the order deserves to be interference under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

8. Considering the rival contention specially the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, it is evident that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has not even looked into the factual matrix of the case nor even considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in assailing the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.01.2025. It was incumbent upon before the revisional authority to have duly considered the grounds raised in the revision as well as considered the objections of respondent and to give reasons either to accept or reject the said contention, but by merely stating that parties are given full opportunity of hearing by the authorities below would not suffice the test of judicial review by the revisional authority and accordingly for the reasons above, the order dated 16.04.2025 is set aside.

9. The matter is remanded back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties and to consider all the grounds raised in challenge made to the appellate order dated 21.01.2025.

10. This Court is conscious of the repeated orders being brought to its knowledge passed by the various revenue authorities which lacks basic ingredients of a judicial order and also that valuable rights to a large section of the population are being adjudicated which require dealing of such matters by a legally trained person who has full knowledge of the revenue laws and can duly apply the relevant laws to the facts of the case while deciding the said matters either at the original, appellate stage or in the revisional stage".

11. A perusal of the present impugned order clearly indicates non-application of mind and clearly does not indicate that the person dealing with the said case is adept and deciding judicial matter.

12. Many High Courts have time and again issued diversions for training of revenue and other administrative officer exercising judicial functions. Recently, High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of Uamkant harma V. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Raj. 2553, has issued the following diversions:- "25. Hence, it is the high time and right time to establish an "Administrative Judicial Academy" for such Officers of Administrative Services. The need to impart training to such Officers, both 'pre-service' and 'in-service', has been felt for a long time and has been neglected by the Government of Rajasthan so far, having disastrous consequences to development of State and justice to public at large. Training course for the Officers of Administrative Services is considered imperative to improve their efficiency. Some kind of training is necessary and useful to enhance their legal acumen and knowledge. Officers must be trained in framing issues, recording evidence presented by the litigating parties, and drafting judgments at both trial and appellate levels. They should also imparted training for enhancing the art of writing interlocutory orders. They should be familiarized with the various stages of a suit and the procedures outlined in the CPC. Furthermore, along with methods for disposing of the matters at each stage.

27. .The following steps are required to be taken by the State Government for the benefit of the Officers posted at the Revenue Courts and the Revenue Appellate Courts:- i. Establish an Administrative Judicial Academy for organizing mandatory training program for the newly appointed and in- service Administrative Officers. ii. Conducting research on judicial reforms, management and access to justice. iii.Promoting judicial innovation, through seminars, colloquium, and workshops. iv. Develop a comprehensive curriculum that blends theory with practical training of procedural laws, including framing of issues, recording of evidence, and writing judgments, mediation and the use of technology in Courts. v. Sensatizing the Officers to take every possible steps for expeditious disposal of the matters, without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments and make all possible endeavours for speedy disposal of the cases.

28. In an age where justice must not only be done, but seem to be done swiftly and fairly, a well-training administration is essential and the same is need of the hour. The role of Administrative Judicial Academy for practical training of the Presiding Officers posted in the Revenue Courts and the Revenue Appellate Courts would certainly play a vital role in shaping competent, ethical and technology savvy officers in more crucial ways than ever. With strategic reforms, increased resources and a learner-centric approach, such academy can emerge as a torch bearer in their judicial education and play a transformative role in the administration of justice delivery system."

13. This Court in the said circumstances direct the Chairman Board of Revenue as well as by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue to consider whether such authorities are being given adequate training so as to equipped them to discharge the statutory duties under the U.P. Revenue Code as well as the Consolidation of Holdings Act. They should immediately frame a policy and take adequate steps for effective training of such persons. They should further review their work periodically and regularly make adequate changes and take adequate steps to enhance their efficiency whenever require. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Chairman, Board of Revenue and Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for necessary action.

14. With the above observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench