Subhash Chandra And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And

1. Heard Sri Shyam Lal 'Dhanurdhari', learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute raised in the present case pertains to the land which was initially recorded in the name of Babadeen who was the recorded tenure holder. He had three sons, namely Mohan, Ram Lakhan and Gajraj. Ram Lakhan died during pendency of the proceedings and was survived by two sons and his wife who are his legal heirs while widow of Mohan, namely Mohini also died during proceedings leaving behind his son Ram Pratap as legal heir. Ram Autar also died laving behind his four sons, namely Ram Shankar, Amit Kukmar, Umesh Kumar, Vinay Kumar and wife Rajeshwari as legal heirs.

4. It has been submitted that during the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, District Barabanki in case No.1578, 1513 a compromise was entered into between all the brothers and the case was disposed of on the basis of compromise dividing the property on mutual consent between the brothers and revenue entries were mutated on the basis of the said order of 13.11.1986. 2 WRIB No. 878 of 2025

5. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order dated 19.9.1986 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation stating that the land ought to have been divided equally and proportionately between all the three brothers as owners of 1/3rd portion of the land while the petitioner, in fact, was 1/3rd share of ancestral property but the dispute pertained only to gata No.707 which according to the petitioner should have been recorded alone in his name which also has been divided amongst all the brothers. He has also raised amongst others the issue of gata No.112.

6. The appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner had duly taken into account of the fact that the appeal was filed after a lapse of 20 years and even on merits the partition was done on the basis of the family settlement and against such a settlement an appeal itself would not be maintainable. He had taken into account the fact that there was extraordinary delay of 20 years and in the meanwhile notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act has been issued and the petitioner has not been able to effectively and satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the said appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidate dated 25.6.2019 had preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation assailing only the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.6.2019. The revisional authority also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner. It was noticed that the order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in 1986 and though the appeal was filed after 20 years and in the meanwhile the file relating to the proceedings of compromise before Assistant Consolidation Officer was missing due to which the order dated 19.9.1986 could not be placed before any of the authorities below and accordingly the revisional authority while rejecting the revision also concurred with the findings of the appellate court with regard to delay in filing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority also taken into account the fact that the petitioner has initiated the said proceedings after a lapse of 20 years and also after issuance of the notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act and accordingly did not find any ground for interference with the order passed by the appellate authority. 3 WRIB No. 878 of 2025

8. Apart from the aforesaid facts with regard to the other grounds raised by the petitioner is that he came to know about the order of 1986 only when physical partition of the property was to take place. In this regard also it has been held that the partition of the property has been done as per the settlement.

9. Learned Standing counsel, at this stage, has also invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P.C.H.Act and submitted that Section 28 (2) provides that on the expiry of six months from the date on which a tenure-holder became entitled to enter into possession of the chak or lands allotted, whether before or after the coming into force of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1962, or on the expiry of six months from the date of the coming into force of that Act, whichever is later, the tenure-holder, shall, unless possession has been obtained earlier, be deemed to have entered into actual physical possession of the allotted chak or lands. He submits that there is legal presumption of possession being handed over to the tenure holders who is entitled for the same within a period of six months and accordingly the onus would only be upon the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner was not given the possession and in this regard also after perusal of the revision or the appeal we do not find any materiel which can indicate that actual physical possession of the property was not handed over to the petitioner in terms of the settlement between the parties and, therefore, it is in aforesaid circumstances that the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected on merits and also for not satisfactorily explaining the delay.

10. Before this Court, while assailing the validity of the appellate as well as revisional order, the petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised before the authorities below. We find that with regard to the aspect of delay 20 years is an extremely long length of time, specially in the circumstances where it is stated that the settlement had been implemented between the parties and the orders have been passed in terms of the said settlement then challenge has to be made in such a case within a reasonable time before the authority where settlement was arrived at. We further take into account the provisions of Section 28 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act where there is legal presumption for handing over of physical possession 4 WRIB No. 878 of 2025 in terms of the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

11. The petitioner himself does not dispute that in most of the properties the petitioner has been given 1/3rd share in the property and it cannot be denied that the petitioner otherwise also would be entitled to the same share in as much as the property of predecessor-in -interest was equally divided between his three sons and, therefore, the presumption arose with regard to validity of the settlement of 1986. The dispute raised by the petitioner is only with regard to certain property where he claims to be entitled to the ownership alone in exclusion to his other brothers. There is no basis or any ground urged by the petitioner with regard to his claim which is accordingly rejected. No material was produced assailing the settlement arrived at between the parties and even the ground that partition has not been carried out pursuant to settlement is also not made out.

12. Accordingly, with regard to the delay we do not find any reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the authorities below nor any material or document has been filed by the petitioner before the authorities or before this Court which may indicate that the petitioner was not aware of the order of 1986 or that attempt was made to partition the land after a delay of 20 years.

13. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. September 11, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Shyam Lal 'Dhanurdhari', learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute raised in the present case pertains to the land which was initially recorded in the name of Babadeen who was the recorded tenure holder. He had three sons, namely Mohan, Ram Lakhan and Gajraj. Ram Lakhan died during pendency of the proceedings and was survived by two sons and his wife who are his legal heirs while widow of Mohan, namely Mohini also died during proceedings leaving behind his son Ram Pratap as legal heir. Ram Autar also died laving behind his four sons, namely Ram Shankar, Amit Kukmar, Umesh Kumar, Vinay Kumar and wife Rajeshwari as legal heirs.

4. It has been submitted that during the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, District Barabanki in case No.1578, 1513 a compromise was entered into between all the brothers and the case was disposed of on the basis of compromise dividing the property on mutual consent between the brothers and revenue entries were mutated on the basis of the said order of 13.11.1986. 2 WRIB No. 878 of 2025

5. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order dated 19.9.1986 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation stating that the land ought to have been divided equally and proportionately between all the three brothers as owners of 1/3rd portion of the land while the petitioner, in fact, was 1/3rd share of ancestral property but the dispute pertained only to gata No.707 which according to the petitioner should have been recorded alone in his name which also has been divided amongst all the brothers. He has also raised amongst others the issue of gata No.112.

6. The appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner had duly taken into account of the fact that the appeal was filed after a lapse of 20 years and even on merits the partition was done on the basis of the family settlement and against such a settlement an appeal itself would not be maintainable. He had taken into account the fact that there was extraordinary delay of 20 years and in the meanwhile notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act has been issued and the petitioner has not been able to effectively and satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the said appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidate dated 25.6.2019 had preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation assailing only the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.6.2019. The revisional authority also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner. It was noticed that the order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in 1986 and though the appeal was filed after 20 years and in the meanwhile the file relating to the proceedings of compromise before Assistant Consolidation Officer was missing due to which the order dated 19.9.1986 could not be placed before any of the authorities below and accordingly the revisional authority while rejecting the revision also concurred with the findings of the appellate court with regard to delay in filing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority also taken into account the fact that the petitioner has initiated the said proceedings after a lapse of 20 years and also after issuance of the notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act and accordingly did not find any ground for interference with the order passed by the appellate authority. 3 WRIB No. 878 of 2025

8. Apart from the aforesaid facts with regard to the other grounds raised by the petitioner is that he came to know about the order of 1986 only when physical partition of the property was to take place. In this regard also it has been held that the partition of the property has been done as per the settlement.

9. Learned Standing counsel, at this stage, has also invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P.C.H.Act and submitted that Section 28 (2) provides that on the expiry of six months from the date on which a tenure-holder became entitled to enter into possession of the chak or lands allotted, whether before or after the coming into force of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1962, or on the expiry of six months from the date of the coming into force of that Act, whichever is later, the tenure-holder, shall, unless possession has been obtained earlier, be deemed to have entered into actual physical possession of the allotted chak or lands. He submits that there is legal presumption of possession being handed over to the tenure holders who is entitled for the same within a period of six months and accordingly the onus would only be upon the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner was not given the possession and in this regard also after perusal of the revision or the appeal we do not find any materiel which can indicate that actual physical possession of the property was not handed over to the petitioner in terms of the settlement between the parties and, therefore, it is in aforesaid circumstances that the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected on merits and also for not satisfactorily explaining the delay.

10. Before this Court, while assailing the validity of the appellate as well as revisional order, the petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised before the authorities below. We find that with regard to the aspect of delay 20 years is an extremely long length of time, specially in the circumstances where it is stated that the settlement had been implemented between the parties and the orders have been passed in terms of the said settlement then challenge has to be made in such a case within a reasonable time before the authority where settlement was arrived at. We further take into account the provisions of Section 28 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act where there is legal presumption for handing over of physical possession 4 WRIB No. 878 of 2025 in terms of the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

11. The petitioner himself does not dispute that in most of the properties the petitioner has been given 1/3rd share in the property and it cannot be denied that the petitioner otherwise also would be entitled to the same share in as much as the property of predecessor-in -interest was equally divided between his three sons and, therefore, the presumption arose with regard to validity of the settlement of 1986. The dispute raised by the petitioner is only with regard to certain property where he claims to be entitled to the ownership alone in exclusion to his other brothers. There is no basis or any ground urged by the petitioner with regard to his claim which is accordingly rejected. No material was produced assailing the settlement arrived at between the parties and even the ground that partition has not been carried out pursuant to settlement is also not made out.

12. Accordingly, with regard to the delay we do not find any reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the authorities below nor any material or document has been filed by the petitioner before the authorities or before this Court which may indicate that the petitioner was not aware of the order of 1986 or that attempt was made to partition the land after a delay of 20 years.

13. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. September 11, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench