✦ High Court of India · 28 Oct 2025

Sunil Kumar And Another vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Unnao And

Case Details High Court of India · 28 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
28 Oct 2025
Bench
ALOK MATHUR
Length
1,155 words

1. Heard Sri Anoop Srivatava, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1 and Sri Manoj Kr. Gupta, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2 which is taken on record.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by Dy. Director Consolidation wherein the revision preferred at the behest of private respondents was dismissed and even the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.11.2024 was upheld but still the Dy. Director Consolidation proceeded to set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Consolidator.

3. It has been submitted that despite the lis having been decided in favour of the petitioners and merely on account of setting aside of the order dated

26.12.2023, the private respondents are trying to illegally take possession of the disputed property.

4. The facts as stated by the petitioners pertains to Khata No. 388, Gata No. 2713/0.3630 hec. and Gata No. 2738/0.320 hect. situated at Village Korari Kala, Pargana Hadaha, Tehsil and District Unnao. It is the case of the petitioners that the recorded tenure holder was Devi Charan who had two sons namely Ganga Charan and Ram Charan. The Ganga Charan had one son, namely, Raj Ram. Raj Ram also had one son, namely, Devi Charan. The petitioners are the sons of Raj Ram while Devi Charan 2 WRIB No. 994 of 2025 though have two wives, but they died issue-less. On the initiation of consolidation proceedings by issuance a notification of Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in light of provisions of Section contained in Section 6A of the C.H. Act, the land came to be recorded in the name of petitioners.

5. It is stated that there is no dispute that the petitioners are the only legal successors of the property which ultimately came to be recorded in the name of Rajaram and also that Devi Charan died issue-less. It has further been stated that there is no dispute with regard to succession of the petitioners and therefore there was no infirmity in the order passed U/S 6 A of the Act of 1953 by the Consolidator on 26.12.2023.

6. The private respondents on the other hand claimed that one of the wives of Devi Charan, namely Chandrakali had executed an unregistered will in favour of Bitana W/o Ganga Charan on 22.03.2004, subsequent to which Bitana has executed a registered will in favour of Krishna Pal and Shree Pal, the predecessor in interest of the private respondents on

30.08.2010 on the basis of which they claimed a right in the disputed property.

7. An application was made to Settlement Officer Consolidation by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 claiming their rights to the disputed land of which a report was called from the Assistant Consolidation Officer who submitted his report on 12.08.2024. On the basis of the said report the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the application made by the private respondents and confirmed the order of Consolidator passed U/S 6a of the Act of 1953 by his order dated 27.11.2024.

8. The order dated 27.11.2024 was subjected to revision U/S 48(3) of U.P. C.H. Act and the said revision has been decided by the impugned order. Even the Dy. Director of Consolidation has held that there is no infirmity in the order passed U/S 6A of the Act of 1953 and in case the private respondents wish to stake their claim to the disputed land they would be given adequate opportunity at the stage of Section 9 of the Act of 1953 and accordingly has dismissed the revision. Despite dismissing the revision, he has set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the 3 WRIB No. 994 of 2025 Consolidator.

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 17-A(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. He has submitted that provision of Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act are invoked only in a situation where there is no dispute with regard to the succession of the land which is subjected to consolidation proceedings. He has further submitted that if at any stage any dispute comes to the notice either by the Consolidator or the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Dy. Director of Consolidation, such an order passed U/S 6a U.P. C.H. Act is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be referred for adjudication U/S 9 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

10. Accordingly, he submits that the revision preferred by private respondents was dismissed but when the dispute has come to light then the Dy. Director of Consolidation in conformity with Sub-Clause 3 of Rule 17(A) has rightly set aside the order of the Consolidator dated

26.12.2023 and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

11. Having heard rival contentions, it is noticed that at the time when the order dated 26.12.2023 was passed, the Consolidator was not aware of any dispute pertaining to the disputed land and petitioners being the successors of Rajaram and Devi Charan, their names were duly recorded. It is only subsequently when the private respondents were staked their claim to the said land on the basis of an unregistered will executed by Chandrakali the wife of Devi Charan that the said dispute has come to light.

12. At the stage of Section 6 of U.P. C.H. Act, undoubtedly the rights of the parties are not liable to be adjudicated and to that extent, there is no infirmity in the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision preferred by the private respondents. On the other hand, this Court finds that once the dispute has come to the notice of the consolidation authorities then they were under a mandate to act in accordance with Rule 17-A Sub-Clause 3 of the Rules of 1954 and therefore despite dismissing the revision of the private respondents, he 4 WRIB No. 994 of 2025 has set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 passed U/S 6A of U.P. C.H. Act.

13. In light of the above and specially the fact that both the parties shall have full right to canvass their grievance and stake their claims to the disputed land in proceedings U/S 9 of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 and accordingly this Court does not find any infirmity with regard to the impugned order. In light of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 28, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Anoop Srivatava, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1 and Sri Manoj Kr. Gupta, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2 which is taken on record.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by Dy. Director Consolidation wherein the revision preferred at the behest of private respondents was dismissed and even the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.11.2024 was upheld but still the Dy. Director Consolidation proceeded to set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Consolidator.

3. It has been submitted that despite the lis having been decided in favour of the petitioners and merely on account of setting aside of the order dated

26.12.2023, the private respondents are trying to illegally take possession of the disputed property.

4. The facts as stated by the petitioners pertains to Khata No. 388, Gata No. 2713/0.3630 hec. and Gata No. 2738/0.320 hect. situated at Village Korari Kala, Pargana Hadaha, Tehsil and District Unnao. It is the case of the petitioners that the recorded tenure holder was Devi Charan who had two sons namely Ganga Charan and Ram Charan. The Ganga Charan had one son, namely, Raj Ram. Raj Ram also had one son, namely, Devi Charan. The petitioners are the sons of Raj Ram while Devi Charan 2 WRIB No. 994 of 2025 though have two wives, but they died issue-less. On the initiation of consolidation proceedings by issuance a notification of Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in light of provisions of Section contained in Section 6A of the C.H. Act, the land came to be recorded in the name of petitioners.

5. It is stated that there is no dispute that the petitioners are the only legal successors of the property which ultimately came to be recorded in the name of Rajaram and also that Devi Charan died issue-less. It has further been stated that there is no dispute with regard to succession of the petitioners and therefore there was no infirmity in the order passed U/S 6 A of the Act of 1953 by the Consolidator on 26.12.2023.

6. The private respondents on the other hand claimed that one of the wives of Devi Charan, namely Chandrakali had executed an unregistered will in favour of Bitana W/o Ganga Charan on 22.03.2004, subsequent to which Bitana has executed a registered will in favour of Krishna Pal and Shree Pal, the predecessor in interest of the private respondents on

30.08.2010 on the basis of which they claimed a right in the disputed property.

7. An application was made to Settlement Officer Consolidation by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 claiming their rights to the disputed land of which a report was called from the Assistant Consolidation Officer who submitted his report on 12.08.2024. On the basis of the said report the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the application made by the private respondents and confirmed the order of Consolidator passed U/S 6a of the Act of 1953 by his order dated 27.11.2024.

8. The order dated 27.11.2024 was subjected to revision U/S 48(3) of U.P. C.H. Act and the said revision has been decided by the impugned order. Even the Dy. Director of Consolidation has held that there is no infirmity in the order passed U/S 6A of the Act of 1953 and in case the private respondents wish to stake their claim to the disputed land they would be given adequate opportunity at the stage of Section 9 of the Act of 1953 and accordingly has dismissed the revision. Despite dismissing the revision, he has set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the 3 WRIB No. 994 of 2025 Consolidator.

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 17-A(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. He has submitted that provision of Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act are invoked only in a situation where there is no dispute with regard to the succession of the land which is subjected to consolidation proceedings. He has further submitted that if at any stage any dispute comes to the notice either by the Consolidator or the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Dy. Director of Consolidation, such an order passed U/S 6a U.P. C.H. Act is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be referred for adjudication U/S 9 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

10. Accordingly, he submits that the revision preferred by private respondents was dismissed but when the dispute has come to light then the Dy. Director of Consolidation in conformity with Sub-Clause 3 of Rule 17(A) has rightly set aside the order of the Consolidator dated

26.12.2023 and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

11. Having heard rival contentions, it is noticed that at the time when the order dated 26.12.2023 was passed, the Consolidator was not aware of any dispute pertaining to the disputed land and petitioners being the successors of Rajaram and Devi Charan, their names were duly recorded. It is only subsequently when the private respondents were staked their claim to the said land on the basis of an unregistered will executed by Chandrakali the wife of Devi Charan that the said dispute has come to light.

12. At the stage of Section 6 of U.P. C.H. Act, undoubtedly the rights of the parties are not liable to be adjudicated and to that extent, there is no infirmity in the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision preferred by the private respondents. On the other hand, this Court finds that once the dispute has come to the notice of the consolidation authorities then they were under a mandate to act in accordance with Rule 17-A Sub-Clause 3 of the Rules of 1954 and therefore despite dismissing the revision of the private respondents, he 4 WRIB No. 994 of 2025 has set aside the order dated 26.12.2023 passed U/S 6A of U.P. C.H. Act.

13. In light of the above and specially the fact that both the parties shall have full right to canvass their grievance and stake their claims to the disputed land in proceedings U/S 9 of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 and accordingly this Court does not find any infirmity with regard to the impugned order. In light of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 28, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments