Babban Prasad Yadav vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And

1. Herd Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5.

2. The present dispute relates to basic year Khata No. 12, 81, 87, 269, 308 and 359, situated at Village Udaru, Pargana- Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. According to the petitioner it was recorded in the name of Ram Kumar Yadav and after his death it was recorded in the name of his son Surya Nath Yadav in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901. Surya Nath Yadav sold the land in favour of the petitioner and his brother Ram Milan by a registered sale deed on

25.11.1974 and the name of the petitioner it was on the basis of said sale deed that the petitioner along with opposite party nos.6 to 10 are in possession of the land.

3. It is further been submitted that during the consolidation proceedings several objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer with regard to the disputed land. It is stated that the petitioner and his brother claimed the land by the sale deed dated 25.11.1974, while on the other hand opposite parties no. 4 and 5 claimed the land on the basis of sale deed dated 14.5.1974, which was executed in their favour by Ram Kumar Yadav. The said dispute was decided by the Consolidation Officer by a detailed judgment and discussions of the facts, the 2 WRIB No. 883 of 2025 Consolidation Officer did not accept the sale deed of the petitioner on that the ground that Surya Nath Yadav did not have any right to execute the sale deed holding that he was not son of Ram Kumar Yadav.

4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in the said judgment the Consolidation Officer has wrongly disbelieved the evidence placed by the petitioner and accordingly the appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the petitioner has pressed application for interim relief, which was rejected by means of order dated

18.9.2024. The reason for not granting the interim order was that the petitioner could not demonstrate that he is in possession of the disputed property and when it was found that he is not in possession of the disputed property then the appellate authority was in the view of that there cannot be any apprehension of interference in the possession of the petitioner. A revision was preferred against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was rejected on the ground of maintainability, in as much as, the order rejecting the interim relief is an interlocutory order, against which, no revision is maintainable.

5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.9.2024 well as as order dated 28.6.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.9.2024 rejecting the application for impleadment is illegal and arbitrary, in as much as there is no dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the land, in as much as, the possession of the land was given to the petitioner that during the consolidation proceedings on 24.9.2001 the possession was delivered in favour of the petitioner and order to said effect that order dated 24.9.2025 was filed by him.

7. Shri I.D. Shukla appearing for private respondents, on the other hand vehemently opposed the petitioner. He has submitted that the right, interest and title of the petitioner has been duly discussed in detailed by the Consolidation Officer, who has come to the conclusion that sale deed 3 WRIB No. 883 of 2025 executed by a person, who himself has not right, interest and title and therefore, no prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioner and further submits that Surya Nath could not having been son of Ram Kumar in as much as the difference between the two was only five years.

8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, where all the disputed questions raised by the petitioner would be executed and therefore, this Curt at this stage could not go into the merits of the case. The only question engaging the attention of this Court is as to whether in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be entitled for any interim protection during pendency of the appellate the proceedings. The undisputed facts are that the disputed property is being claimed by the petitioner as well as by the respondents on the basis of the sale deed. In the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer both the parties had led evidence to dis-entitle the other where the question of validity of the sale deed. Though the Consolidation Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner and allowed the claim of the respondents no. 4 and 5 and presently the dispute is under consideration before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. With regard to the ground of application for interim relief was rejected with aspect of the possession of the disputed land.

9. Suffice to say that it is the contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the said disputed land on the basis of certain proceedings during the consolidation proceedings, where the disputed land was handed over to the petitioner during the said proceedings.

10. Accordingly without entering into the merits of this aspect also as to whether the petitioner is in fact in possession or not suffice to say that the petitioner has indicated some material to show that he is in possession on the basis of the document presented by him.

11. Accordingly, in such circumstances of the merits of controversy is still under consideration the authority while considering the case it would be the duty of the Presiding Officer to see that the property is protected till such time at the interest in said property is decided before the him, where the notices have been issued and the respondents have been called 4 WRIB No. 883 of 2025 upon to file the reply then certainly adjudicate the matter finally on merits. In such a situation to preserve the property, interim protection deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant and even in an arguable case is made out. Unless and until it is demonstrated that no case is made out in the appeal, then such an appeal is dismissed at the very outset rather than calling upon the response or admitting the said appeal but once on the preliminary scrutiny the appellate authority has found it fit case for hearing and calling upon the opposite parties, then he should consider the preservation of the disputed property till the adjudication takes place.

12. In light of the above, for the reasons aforesaid the order dated

28.06.2025 is set aside and both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the appellate proceedings.

13. Accordingly, no directions for expeditious disposal can be passed in the present case.

13. In light of above, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. December 4, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Herd Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5.

2. The present dispute relates to basic year Khata No. 12, 81, 87, 269, 308 and 359, situated at Village Udaru, Pargana- Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. According to the petitioner it was recorded in the name of Ram Kumar Yadav and after his death it was recorded in the name of his son Surya Nath Yadav in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901. Surya Nath Yadav sold the land in favour of the petitioner and his brother Ram Milan by a registered sale deed on

25.11.1974 and the name of the petitioner it was on the basis of said sale deed that the petitioner along with opposite party nos.6 to 10 are in possession of the land.

3. It is further been submitted that during the consolidation proceedings several objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer with regard to the disputed land. It is stated that the petitioner and his brother claimed the land by the sale deed dated 25.11.1974, while on the other hand opposite parties no. 4 and 5 claimed the land on the basis of sale deed dated 14.5.1974, which was executed in their favour by Ram Kumar Yadav. The said dispute was decided by the Consolidation Officer by a detailed judgment and discussions of the facts, the 2 WRIB No. 883 of 2025 Consolidation Officer did not accept the sale deed of the petitioner on that the ground that Surya Nath Yadav did not have any right to execute the sale deed holding that he was not son of Ram Kumar Yadav.

4. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in the said judgment the Consolidation Officer has wrongly disbelieved the evidence placed by the petitioner and accordingly the appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the petitioner has pressed application for interim relief, which was rejected by means of order dated

18.9.2024. The reason for not granting the interim order was that the petitioner could not demonstrate that he is in possession of the disputed property and when it was found that he is not in possession of the disputed property then the appellate authority was in the view of that there cannot be any apprehension of interference in the possession of the petitioner. A revision was preferred against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was rejected on the ground of maintainability, in as much as, the order rejecting the interim relief is an interlocutory order, against which, no revision is maintainable.

5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.9.2024 well as as order dated 28.6.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.9.2024 rejecting the application for impleadment is illegal and arbitrary, in as much as there is no dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the land, in as much as, the possession of the land was given to the petitioner that during the consolidation proceedings on 24.9.2001 the possession was delivered in favour of the petitioner and order to said effect that order dated 24.9.2025 was filed by him.

7. Shri I.D. Shukla appearing for private respondents, on the other hand vehemently opposed the petitioner. He has submitted that the right, interest and title of the petitioner has been duly discussed in detailed by the Consolidation Officer, who has come to the conclusion that sale deed 3 WRIB No. 883 of 2025 executed by a person, who himself has not right, interest and title and therefore, no prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioner and further submits that Surya Nath could not having been son of Ram Kumar in as much as the difference between the two was only five years.

8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, where all the disputed questions raised by the petitioner would be executed and therefore, this Curt at this stage could not go into the merits of the case. The only question engaging the attention of this Court is as to whether in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be entitled for any interim protection during pendency of the appellate the proceedings. The undisputed facts are that the disputed property is being claimed by the petitioner as well as by the respondents on the basis of the sale deed. In the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer both the parties had led evidence to dis-entitle the other where the question of validity of the sale deed. Though the Consolidation Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner and allowed the claim of the respondents no. 4 and 5 and presently the dispute is under consideration before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. With regard to the ground of application for interim relief was rejected with aspect of the possession of the disputed land.

9. Suffice to say that it is the contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the said disputed land on the basis of certain proceedings during the consolidation proceedings, where the disputed land was handed over to the petitioner during the said proceedings.

10. Accordingly without entering into the merits of this aspect also as to whether the petitioner is in fact in possession or not suffice to say that the petitioner has indicated some material to show that he is in possession on the basis of the document presented by him.

11. Accordingly, in such circumstances of the merits of controversy is still under consideration the authority while considering the case it would be the duty of the Presiding Officer to see that the property is protected till such time at the interest in said property is decided before the him, where the notices have been issued and the respondents have been called 4 WRIB No. 883 of 2025 upon to file the reply then certainly adjudicate the matter finally on merits. In such a situation to preserve the property, interim protection deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant and even in an arguable case is made out. Unless and until it is demonstrated that no case is made out in the appeal, then such an appeal is dismissed at the very outset rather than calling upon the response or admitting the said appeal but once on the preliminary scrutiny the appellate authority has found it fit case for hearing and calling upon the opposite parties, then he should consider the preservation of the disputed property till the adjudication takes place.

12. In light of the above, for the reasons aforesaid the order dated

28.06.2025 is set aside and both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the appellate proceedings.

13. Accordingly, no directions for expeditious disposal can be passed in the present case.

13. In light of above, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. December 4, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench