The District Magistrate, Gonda And Others vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Alok Kirti Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6 which is taken on record.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition for a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate not to proceed with the proceedings U/S 41 of Land Revenue Act and also to direct him not to pass any orders till the application of the petitioner U/S 109 of Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 19.12.2022 is decided .

3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioner are that petitioner is a tenure holder of Gata No. 451 which during the consolidation proceedings was renumbered as Gata No. 691, 692 and 694 during consolidation proceeding, Gata No. 691 was allotted in favour of respondent No. 6.

4. It has been stated that respondent No. 6 had moved an application U/S 41 of Land Revenue Act which was allowed ex-parte on 26.11.2012 and grand father of the petitioner after coming to know of the said order had moved an application of for recall of the order dated 26.11.2012 which as dismissed on 03.09.2022.

5. It has been submitted that with regard to Gata No. 691 and 692 litigation was proceeding between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and reached to the stage of Dy. Director of Consolidation and the revision 2 WRIC No. 10201 of 2025 which was preferred by predecessor in interest of the petitioner was dismissed in default on 20.09.2008. It has been stated that the petitioner had moved an application of recall on 29.01.2024 which is pending consideration. Along with the said application for recall, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that armed with the order dated

03.09.2022, the respondent No. 6 seeks to take forcibly possession of the disputed land despite the fact that the application for recall is pending before the Dy. Director of Consolidation.

7. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has moved another application U/S 42 of the Consolidation of Holding Act before the Consolidation Officer with a prayer to correct the map pertaining to disputed plots. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a writ of prohibation can be issued to the SDM who should be prevented from demarcating the land till the proceedings as mentioned above are concluded, failing which the rights of the petitioner shall be affected.

8. The writ petition has been vehemently opposed by learned Standing Counsel. It has been submitted that firstly a writ of prohibition can be sought only with regard to a court or an authority exercising judicial powers. He submits that though Section 41 of Land Revenue Act provides for settlement of a boundary disputes but submits that the boundary disputes has already been settled in favour of private respondents when the order dated 03.09.2022 was passed and the said order has not been assailed by the petitioner before any higher forum.

9. He submits that as per Section 41 of Land Revenue Act, the second limb provides for the possession of the property in favour of whom orders have been passed and now only the administrative action remains for giving effect to the order dated 03.09.2022. He submits that the ground raised by the petitioner is also baseless with regard to the fact that he has preferred a recall application of the order dated 20.09.2008 after a delay of 16 years. He submits that till such time the delay is condoned, it cannot be said that any revisional proceedings are pending before the Dy. Director of Consolidation and consequently submits that there is no legal 3 WRIC No. 10201 of 2025 basis for seeking a writ of prohibition to the SDM restraining him not to proceed to comply with the said order dated 03.09.2022.

10. Considering the rival submission, it is noticed that the dispute in the present case is pending for a considerable long length of time and the revision preferred by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was concluded and decided ex-parte by order dated 20.09.2008. The recall application has been filed only on 29.01.2024 after delay of 16 years and there is no order on record which may indicate that even the delay has been condoned.

11. It has further been noticed that as per provisions of Section 27 of U.P. Revenue Code after issuance of notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act it is duty of the Collector to maintain all the records including map, field boom and record of rights on conclusion of the consolidation proceedings. This Court has been informed that a notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act was issued in 2011 and accordingly the provisions of Section 27(3) would come into effect after issuance of the notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the order of the SDM dated 03.09.2022 is existing and there is no order contrary to the said order nor is there any case of the petitioner that he has moved any appeal or revision against the said order.

12. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any basis for restraining the SDM to proceed to execute the said order. It is noticed that there are certain application which have been filed by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, some of which have been filed after considerable delay.

13. Needless to say whenever the said applications are decided the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to comply with the said orders as and when they are passed but merely filing of the aforesaid applications cannot vest any legal right to the petitioner to restrain the SDM from proceeding to comply with the said order.

14. In light of the above, no ground exists for issue a writ of prohibition as prayed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The writ petition is 4 WRIC No. 10201 of 2025 devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Alok Kirti Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6 which is taken on record.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition for a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate not to proceed with the proceedings U/S 41 of Land Revenue Act and also to direct him not to pass any orders till the application of the petitioner U/S 109 of Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 19.12.2022 is decided .

3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioner are that petitioner is a tenure holder of Gata No. 451 which during the consolidation proceedings was renumbered as Gata No. 691, 692 and 694 during consolidation proceeding, Gata No. 691 was allotted in favour of respondent No. 6.

4. It has been stated that respondent No. 6 had moved an application U/S 41 of Land Revenue Act which was allowed ex-parte on 26.11.2012 and grand father of the petitioner after coming to know of the said order had moved an application of for recall of the order dated 26.11.2012 which as dismissed on 03.09.2022.

5. It has been submitted that with regard to Gata No. 691 and 692 litigation was proceeding between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and reached to the stage of Dy. Director of Consolidation and the revision 2 WRIC No. 10201 of 2025 which was preferred by predecessor in interest of the petitioner was dismissed in default on 20.09.2008. It has been stated that the petitioner had moved an application of recall on 29.01.2024 which is pending consideration. Along with the said application for recall, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that armed with the order dated

03.09.2022, the respondent No. 6 seeks to take forcibly possession of the disputed land despite the fact that the application for recall is pending before the Dy. Director of Consolidation.

7. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has moved another application U/S 42 of the Consolidation of Holding Act before the Consolidation Officer with a prayer to correct the map pertaining to disputed plots. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a writ of prohibation can be issued to the SDM who should be prevented from demarcating the land till the proceedings as mentioned above are concluded, failing which the rights of the petitioner shall be affected.

8. The writ petition has been vehemently opposed by learned Standing Counsel. It has been submitted that firstly a writ of prohibition can be sought only with regard to a court or an authority exercising judicial powers. He submits that though Section 41 of Land Revenue Act provides for settlement of a boundary disputes but submits that the boundary disputes has already been settled in favour of private respondents when the order dated 03.09.2022 was passed and the said order has not been assailed by the petitioner before any higher forum.

9. He submits that as per Section 41 of Land Revenue Act, the second limb provides for the possession of the property in favour of whom orders have been passed and now only the administrative action remains for giving effect to the order dated 03.09.2022. He submits that the ground raised by the petitioner is also baseless with regard to the fact that he has preferred a recall application of the order dated 20.09.2008 after a delay of 16 years. He submits that till such time the delay is condoned, it cannot be said that any revisional proceedings are pending before the Dy. Director of Consolidation and consequently submits that there is no legal 3 WRIC No. 10201 of 2025 basis for seeking a writ of prohibition to the SDM restraining him not to proceed to comply with the said order dated 03.09.2022.

10. Considering the rival submission, it is noticed that the dispute in the present case is pending for a considerable long length of time and the revision preferred by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was concluded and decided ex-parte by order dated 20.09.2008. The recall application has been filed only on 29.01.2024 after delay of 16 years and there is no order on record which may indicate that even the delay has been condoned.

11. It has further been noticed that as per provisions of Section 27 of U.P. Revenue Code after issuance of notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act it is duty of the Collector to maintain all the records including map, field boom and record of rights on conclusion of the consolidation proceedings. This Court has been informed that a notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act was issued in 2011 and accordingly the provisions of Section 27(3) would come into effect after issuance of the notification U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holding Act. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the order of the SDM dated 03.09.2022 is existing and there is no order contrary to the said order nor is there any case of the petitioner that he has moved any appeal or revision against the said order.

12. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any basis for restraining the SDM to proceed to execute the said order. It is noticed that there are certain application which have been filed by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, some of which have been filed after considerable delay.

13. Needless to say whenever the said applications are decided the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to comply with the said orders as and when they are passed but merely filing of the aforesaid applications cannot vest any legal right to the petitioner to restrain the SDM from proceeding to comply with the said order.

14. In light of the above, no ground exists for issue a writ of prohibition as prayed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The writ petition is 4 WRIC No. 10201 of 2025 devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench