Madan Lal And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lakhimpur

Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the property which has been alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner by means of auction conducted with regard to arrears of land revenue as the recorded tenure holder, Gulab, who had taken a loan from Land Development Bank, could not repay the loan. Accordingly, part of his property was auctioned, which is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner.

3. That matter was considered before the Consolidation Officer where the petitioner had filed all the material to demonstrate his title over the disputed land but in the proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the application of the petitioner has been rejected recording the fact that the land situated at gata No.180/5.44 acres was recorded in the name of Sri Ram, son of Gulab, resident of Village Ghoorkheda, Pargana Kheri, Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Kheri and subsequently half portion of the said land i.e. 1.15 acre came to be recorded in the name of Chandrika and Heeralal sons of Puttulal who have purchased the same by means of 2 WRIB No. 824 of 2025 a sale deed dated 22.1.1992 and their names have also been recorded in the revenue records. After sale of the aforesaid land 4.82 acres was left with Sri Ram son of Gulab. He has further taken into consideration that with regard to fasli year 1391 to 1396 against gata No.180/5.44 acres name of Sriram was recorded and for fasli year 1397 to 1402 with regard to 3.13 acres of gata No180 M names of Chandrika and Heeralal sons of Puttu Lal along with Ram Asre, Bhailal came to be recorded. He has further stated that no reason have been indicated in the revenue records as to how names of Madan Lal, Ram Asre and Bhai Lal came to be recorded in the revenue records. He has further considered that claim of the petitioner that in case they had purchased the land by means of an auction then the sale certificate ought to have been registered and no registration certificate or payment of stamp duty in this regard is available on record.

4. Further, before the Consolidation Officer, the sale certificate was not filed, apart from which, he was of the opinion that there is no material to indicate as to how the petitioners' name was recorded in the revenue records and accordingly rejected the objections filed by them.

5. The petitioners subsequently assailed the validity of the order dated

6.8.2024 before Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) under Section 48 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The entire matter was re-examined by the DDC who considering the case of the petitioner and observed that on 13.5.1986 the disputed land was alleged to have been auctioned in favour of the petitioners and and the Pargana Adhikari had approved the said auction on 4.7.1986 and subsequently even in the revenue records the necessary mutation was carried out.

6. While considering the claim of the petitioner with regard to auction he has expressed doubt about the said auction in as much as no other document except the sale certificate was filed by him and there was no explanation as to whether the sale consideration was deposited by 3 WRIB No. 824 of 2025 the petitioner nor any document pertaining to auction was filed by him and accordingly he has concluded that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the land was purchased by him through a valid auction. Accordingly, he did not find any reason to interfere with the order of Consolidation Officer and accordingly has rejected the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition has assailed both the orders of Consolidation Officer and DDC and submits that the sale certificate itself is conclusive proof of the ownership of the petitioner and nothing else was required to be demonstrated. He submits that both the authorities have committed manifest error of law in not accepting the plea of the petitioner and rejecting his contention.

8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there was no material available on record to demonstrate that the auction had ever been carried out. He has further submitted that there was clear discrepancy in the ground taken by the petitioner in as much as it was alleged that at one place that loan was taken from Land Development Bank while on the other hand the loan taken by him is stated to be from U.P. Cooperative Society Bank Limited, Lucknow, Branch Bejham, District Lakhimpur. Apart from the aforesaid the petitioner was not able to demonstrate all the material particulars with regard to auction which was allegedly carried out. The petitioner claims to be the highest bidder but in absence of any material or cogent evidence available on record there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by both the authorities below rejecting the contention of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

9. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that both the authorities below have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not been able to demonstrate that he had purchased the disputed land in an auction. We further find that before the Consolidation Officer the sale certificate was never produced despite an opportunity granted to him and accordingly his 4 WRIB No. 824 of 2025 objections were rejected solely on the ground that he could not prove his case by adducing material particulars in support of his contentions and accordingly the Consolidation Officer was of the view that there is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner had purchased the disputed land through the auction.

10. It seems that the sale certificate was produced before Deputy Director of Consolidation who has taken into account and finding has been recorded that the same was not registered. Apart from the above, we further see that there is dispute in the agency from whom the tenure holder had taken loan while on one hand it was stated to be Land Development Bank, which had advanced the land to the tenure holder while from the record it was found that the auction proceedings were conducted at the behest of U.P. Cooperative Bank. Apart from the aforesaid discrepancy, no document pertaining to conduct of the said auction was filed nor was any material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had deposited the auction money on conclusion of the said auction and no document in this regard was available. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that there was no substantial material to demonstrate his claim.

11. Considering the claim of the petitioners, this Court had directed the relevant documents to be produced by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which can demonstrate that the auction proceedings had, in fact, been carried out and to that effect this Court had asked the Deputy Director of Consolidation to appear before this Court along with necessary record.

12. According to the D.D.C. no record is available with regard to the said auction and we further find that report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Kheri dated 16.9.2025 is available according to which the documents pertaining to the said auction were searched but the same could not be found and he has submitted his report based on the report submitted by Tehsildar, Tehsil - Mitauli. 5 WRIB No. 824 of 2025

13. However, the copies of the reply submitted under Right to Information Act have also been annexed where they had replied that the documents pertaining to the said auction has been issued by the concerned revenue authority on 4.7.1986.

14. This Court also considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and from perusal of the entire material, this Court does not find that either the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that there was any advertisement pursuant to which he had participated in the auction proceedings or offer was issued to him to pay bid amount or any other document which may show that the auction, in fact, had taken place. Apart from the sale certificate no evidence has been adduced. Accordingly, this Court does not find sufficient material or evidence so as to interfere with the findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation or by the Consolidation Officer.

15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file a suit for declaration before a court of competent jurisdiction.

16. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. September 24, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the property which has been alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner by means of auction conducted with regard to arrears of land revenue as the recorded tenure holder, Gulab, who had taken a loan from Land Development Bank, could not repay the loan. Accordingly, part of his property was auctioned, which is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner.

3. That matter was considered before the Consolidation Officer where the petitioner had filed all the material to demonstrate his title over the disputed land but in the proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the application of the petitioner has been rejected recording the fact that the land situated at gata No.180/5.44 acres was recorded in the name of Sri Ram, son of Gulab, resident of Village Ghoorkheda, Pargana Kheri, Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Kheri and subsequently half portion of the said land i.e. 1.15 acre came to be recorded in the name of Chandrika and Heeralal sons of Puttulal who have purchased the same by means of 2 WRIB No. 824 of 2025 a sale deed dated 22.1.1992 and their names have also been recorded in the revenue records. After sale of the aforesaid land 4.82 acres was left with Sri Ram son of Gulab. He has further taken into consideration that with regard to fasli year 1391 to 1396 against gata No.180/5.44 acres name of Sriram was recorded and for fasli year 1397 to 1402 with regard to 3.13 acres of gata No180 M names of Chandrika and Heeralal sons of Puttu Lal along with Ram Asre, Bhailal came to be recorded. He has further stated that no reason have been indicated in the revenue records as to how names of Madan Lal, Ram Asre and Bhai Lal came to be recorded in the revenue records. He has further considered that claim of the petitioner that in case they had purchased the land by means of an auction then the sale certificate ought to have been registered and no registration certificate or payment of stamp duty in this regard is available on record.

4. Further, before the Consolidation Officer, the sale certificate was not filed, apart from which, he was of the opinion that there is no material to indicate as to how the petitioners' name was recorded in the revenue records and accordingly rejected the objections filed by them.

5. The petitioners subsequently assailed the validity of the order dated

6.8.2024 before Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) under Section 48 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The entire matter was re-examined by the DDC who considering the case of the petitioner and observed that on 13.5.1986 the disputed land was alleged to have been auctioned in favour of the petitioners and and the Pargana Adhikari had approved the said auction on 4.7.1986 and subsequently even in the revenue records the necessary mutation was carried out.

6. While considering the claim of the petitioner with regard to auction he has expressed doubt about the said auction in as much as no other document except the sale certificate was filed by him and there was no explanation as to whether the sale consideration was deposited by 3 WRIB No. 824 of 2025 the petitioner nor any document pertaining to auction was filed by him and accordingly he has concluded that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the land was purchased by him through a valid auction. Accordingly, he did not find any reason to interfere with the order of Consolidation Officer and accordingly has rejected the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition has assailed both the orders of Consolidation Officer and DDC and submits that the sale certificate itself is conclusive proof of the ownership of the petitioner and nothing else was required to be demonstrated. He submits that both the authorities have committed manifest error of law in not accepting the plea of the petitioner and rejecting his contention.

8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there was no material available on record to demonstrate that the auction had ever been carried out. He has further submitted that there was clear discrepancy in the ground taken by the petitioner in as much as it was alleged that at one place that loan was taken from Land Development Bank while on the other hand the loan taken by him is stated to be from U.P. Cooperative Society Bank Limited, Lucknow, Branch Bejham, District Lakhimpur. Apart from the aforesaid the petitioner was not able to demonstrate all the material particulars with regard to auction which was allegedly carried out. The petitioner claims to be the highest bidder but in absence of any material or cogent evidence available on record there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by both the authorities below rejecting the contention of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

9. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that both the authorities below have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not been able to demonstrate that he had purchased the disputed land in an auction. We further find that before the Consolidation Officer the sale certificate was never produced despite an opportunity granted to him and accordingly his 4 WRIB No. 824 of 2025 objections were rejected solely on the ground that he could not prove his case by adducing material particulars in support of his contentions and accordingly the Consolidation Officer was of the view that there is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner had purchased the disputed land through the auction.

10. It seems that the sale certificate was produced before Deputy Director of Consolidation who has taken into account and finding has been recorded that the same was not registered. Apart from the above, we further see that there is dispute in the agency from whom the tenure holder had taken loan while on one hand it was stated to be Land Development Bank, which had advanced the land to the tenure holder while from the record it was found that the auction proceedings were conducted at the behest of U.P. Cooperative Bank. Apart from the aforesaid discrepancy, no document pertaining to conduct of the said auction was filed nor was any material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had deposited the auction money on conclusion of the said auction and no document in this regard was available. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that there was no substantial material to demonstrate his claim.

11. Considering the claim of the petitioners, this Court had directed the relevant documents to be produced by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which can demonstrate that the auction proceedings had, in fact, been carried out and to that effect this Court had asked the Deputy Director of Consolidation to appear before this Court along with necessary record.

12. According to the D.D.C. no record is available with regard to the said auction and we further find that report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Kheri dated 16.9.2025 is available according to which the documents pertaining to the said auction were searched but the same could not be found and he has submitted his report based on the report submitted by Tehsildar, Tehsil - Mitauli. 5 WRIB No. 824 of 2025

13. However, the copies of the reply submitted under Right to Information Act have also been annexed where they had replied that the documents pertaining to the said auction has been issued by the concerned revenue authority on 4.7.1986.

14. This Court also considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and from perusal of the entire material, this Court does not find that either the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that there was any advertisement pursuant to which he had participated in the auction proceedings or offer was issued to him to pay bid amount or any other document which may show that the auction, in fact, had taken place. Apart from the sale certificate no evidence has been adduced. Accordingly, this Court does not find sufficient material or evidence so as to interfere with the findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation or by the Consolidation Officer.

15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file a suit for declaration before a court of competent jurisdiction.

16. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. September 24, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench