Dinesh Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue,

Heard Sri Amol Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4 while Sri Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi has appeared on behalf of caveator- respondent No.5.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition pertains to the property which was recorded in the name of his grandfather, namely, Sitaram, who died sometime in 1963. On the death of Sitaram the land came to be recorded in the name of Maina Devi and on the death of Maina Devi by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer passed in case No.263 dated 8.12.1963 gata No.177 was directed to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad - the father of the petitioner. On the same day i.e. 8.12.1963 by another order passed in case No.261 by Assistant Consolidation Officer the land situated at gata No.s 1275, 1276, 1277, 1281, 1293 M, 1293, 1294, 1295 and 1299 (nine gatas) were directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram, the predecessor in interest of respondent No.5 after deleting the name of Gaya Prasad. Petitioner is son of Gaya Prasad who died in 1972 but the petitioner came to know about the order dated 18.12.1963 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No.263 wherein the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram when it was found that after the death of Rajaram 2 WRIB No. 1005 of 2025 on 31.3.2021 on the basis of a registered gift deed on 10.12.2000 an order was passed for mutating the name of Reeta Devi i.e. opposite party No.5 with regard to the said nine gatas mentioned here-in- above.

3. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, before whom the appeal was instituted by the petitioner, has rejected the same on the ground of delay. It was noticed that the petitioner has instituted the proceedings after extraordinary long length of 58 years and the said delay could not be satisfactorily explained by him. It was further recorded that the said land was recorded in the name of father of the petitioner i.e. Gaya Prasad, whose name was directed to be deleted from the revenue records and the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram. Gaya Prasad did not choose to challenge the order dated 8.12.1963 despite the fact that he was alive for nine years after passing of the said order and it is only in 2023 that the petitioner instituted the appeal against the said order.

4. The petitioner had claimed condonation of delay on account of want of knowledge with regard to the fact that certain gatas (nine) continued to be recorded in the name of Rajaram after deleting the name of his father Gaya Prasad.

5. On rejection of his appeal vide order dated 22.4.2024 petitioner had filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also considered the arguments raised by the petitioners and did not find any ground for interference and rejected the revision upholding the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated

22.4.2024. In the present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of orders dated 30.5.2025, 22.4.2024 as well as order dated 8.12.1963.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again reiterated the arguments raised by him before the authorities below and submits that the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 8.12.1963 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer where the land has been directed to 3 WRIB No. 1005 of 2025 be mutated in the name of Rajaram.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition and submit that 58 years is an extremely long length of time apart from which it is stated that father of the petitioner, namely Gaya Prasad was the person aggrieved of the said order and the said order was within his knowledge in as much as after death of Maina Devi certain land certain other land came to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer on the same day i.. 8.12.1963 and, therefore, there are chances that there must have been some settlement between them or for some other reasons due to which Gaya Prasad deliberately chose not to assail the validity of the impugned order dated 8.12.1963 and consequently the petitioner who is successor - in - interest of Gaya Prasad is bound by any decision or act of omission or commission of Gaya Prasad and consequently cannot be permitted to challenge the said order after extraordinary long length of 58 years and accordingly prayer was made for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. After hearing the rival contention, the only question which arises before this Court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to assail validity of the order dated 8.12.1963 after substantially long length of 58 years, especially taking into consideration that the order was passed when father of Gaya Prasad was alive and was also aware of the said order. In the peculiar facts of the present writ petition, it is noticed that after death of Maina Devi father of the petitioner had moved an application before Assistant Consolidation Officer which was registered as case No.261 and that was also decided on 8.12.1963 and application was allowed and certain land which was recorded in the name of Maina Devi were directed to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad. It seems that another application was preferred by Rajaram in case No.263 which also came to be decided on 8.12.1963 and in that case the land which was recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram in place of Gaya Prasad. It is also worth considering that in 4 WRIB No. 1005 of 2025 case there was any dispute the same could have been raised by Gaya Prasad before Assistant Consolidation Officer or before any higher forum but surprisingly the case No.261 of Gaya Prasad was allowed and it is not the case of the petitioner that the land situated at gata No.s were the land which found mentioned in the application preferred by Gaya Prasad. In case, it was so then no application of Gaya Prasad to that extent would have been rejected which is not the case of the petitioner. Apart from the above, there is no document which could demonstrate that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed property nor any such document was placed either before Settlement Officer of Consolidation or before Deputy Director of Consolidation or even before this Court in the present writ petition.

9. In light of the above, we find that the application of Rajaram has been allowed which pertains only to 9 gatas. The very fact that Gaya Prasad was a party in both the cases and his application was allowed while in the second case the application of Rajaram was allowed and it can safely be presumed that when Gaya Prasad was fully aware of the said proceedings and deliberately chose not to assail the order passed on the same day i.e. 8.12.1963 then the petitioner, who is the son of Gaya Prasad, is bound by such decision apart from which after long period of 58 years he cannot be allowed to assail the order dated 8.12.1963 passed in case No.263.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground for interference either with the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation or with the order of Deputy Director of consolidation. The petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Amol Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4 while Sri Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi has appeared on behalf of caveator- respondent No.5.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition pertains to the property which was recorded in the name of his grandfather, namely, Sitaram, who died sometime in 1963. On the death of Sitaram the land came to be recorded in the name of Maina Devi and on the death of Maina Devi by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer passed in case No.263 dated 8.12.1963 gata No.177 was directed to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad - the father of the petitioner. On the same day i.e. 8.12.1963 by another order passed in case No.261 by Assistant Consolidation Officer the land situated at gata No.s 1275, 1276, 1277, 1281, 1293 M, 1293, 1294, 1295 and 1299 (nine gatas) were directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram, the predecessor in interest of respondent No.5 after deleting the name of Gaya Prasad. Petitioner is son of Gaya Prasad who died in 1972 but the petitioner came to know about the order dated 18.12.1963 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No.263 wherein the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram when it was found that after the death of Rajaram 2 WRIB No. 1005 of 2025 on 31.3.2021 on the basis of a registered gift deed on 10.12.2000 an order was passed for mutating the name of Reeta Devi i.e. opposite party No.5 with regard to the said nine gatas mentioned here-in- above.

3. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation, before whom the appeal was instituted by the petitioner, has rejected the same on the ground of delay. It was noticed that the petitioner has instituted the proceedings after extraordinary long length of 58 years and the said delay could not be satisfactorily explained by him. It was further recorded that the said land was recorded in the name of father of the petitioner i.e. Gaya Prasad, whose name was directed to be deleted from the revenue records and the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram. Gaya Prasad did not choose to challenge the order dated 8.12.1963 despite the fact that he was alive for nine years after passing of the said order and it is only in 2023 that the petitioner instituted the appeal against the said order.

4. The petitioner had claimed condonation of delay on account of want of knowledge with regard to the fact that certain gatas (nine) continued to be recorded in the name of Rajaram after deleting the name of his father Gaya Prasad.

5. On rejection of his appeal vide order dated 22.4.2024 petitioner had filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also considered the arguments raised by the petitioners and did not find any ground for interference and rejected the revision upholding the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated

22.4.2024. In the present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of orders dated 30.5.2025, 22.4.2024 as well as order dated 8.12.1963.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again reiterated the arguments raised by him before the authorities below and submits that the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 8.12.1963 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer where the land has been directed to 3 WRIB No. 1005 of 2025 be mutated in the name of Rajaram.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition and submit that 58 years is an extremely long length of time apart from which it is stated that father of the petitioner, namely Gaya Prasad was the person aggrieved of the said order and the said order was within his knowledge in as much as after death of Maina Devi certain land certain other land came to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer on the same day i.. 8.12.1963 and, therefore, there are chances that there must have been some settlement between them or for some other reasons due to which Gaya Prasad deliberately chose not to assail the validity of the impugned order dated 8.12.1963 and consequently the petitioner who is successor - in - interest of Gaya Prasad is bound by any decision or act of omission or commission of Gaya Prasad and consequently cannot be permitted to challenge the said order after extraordinary long length of 58 years and accordingly prayer was made for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. After hearing the rival contention, the only question which arises before this Court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to assail validity of the order dated 8.12.1963 after substantially long length of 58 years, especially taking into consideration that the order was passed when father of Gaya Prasad was alive and was also aware of the said order. In the peculiar facts of the present writ petition, it is noticed that after death of Maina Devi father of the petitioner had moved an application before Assistant Consolidation Officer which was registered as case No.261 and that was also decided on 8.12.1963 and application was allowed and certain land which was recorded in the name of Maina Devi were directed to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad. It seems that another application was preferred by Rajaram in case No.263 which also came to be decided on 8.12.1963 and in that case the land which was recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajaram in place of Gaya Prasad. It is also worth considering that in 4 WRIB No. 1005 of 2025 case there was any dispute the same could have been raised by Gaya Prasad before Assistant Consolidation Officer or before any higher forum but surprisingly the case No.261 of Gaya Prasad was allowed and it is not the case of the petitioner that the land situated at gata No.s were the land which found mentioned in the application preferred by Gaya Prasad. In case, it was so then no application of Gaya Prasad to that extent would have been rejected which is not the case of the petitioner. Apart from the above, there is no document which could demonstrate that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed property nor any such document was placed either before Settlement Officer of Consolidation or before Deputy Director of Consolidation or even before this Court in the present writ petition.

9. In light of the above, we find that the application of Rajaram has been allowed which pertains only to 9 gatas. The very fact that Gaya Prasad was a party in both the cases and his application was allowed while in the second case the application of Rajaram was allowed and it can safely be presumed that when Gaya Prasad was fully aware of the said proceedings and deliberately chose not to assail the order passed on the same day i.e. 8.12.1963 then the petitioner, who is the son of Gaya Prasad, is bound by such decision apart from which after long period of 58 years he cannot be allowed to assail the order dated 8.12.1963 passed in case No.263.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground for interference either with the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation or with the order of Deputy Director of consolidation. The petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench