Balram v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. And Others

1. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents no. 1 to 3, Shri Sachin Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Mirza Ataulla Beg, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.09.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Revision No. 226/2022 (Balram Vs. Shivnandan), under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and order dated

25.01.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Lalganj, District Raebareli in Case No. 5085/2021 (Balram Vs. Shivnandan) under Section 209 H of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated

28.12.2006 passed by S.D.M, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that present dispute pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 1204/0.506 Hectare, situated at village Ugabhad, Pargana (Kheeron, Tahsil Lalganj, District Raebareli, which was recorded as Navin Parti and it is Gaon Sabha land.

4. He has further submitted that he belongs Scheduled Caste category and is a landless person and was in possession of the aforesaid land prior to 1985 and subsequently the said land has been acquired by the Ganga 2 WRIC No. 10238 of 2025 Expressway. The petitioner claims benefit of Section 122- (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) and states that in light of the aforesaid facts his name was to be recorded as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights

5. It has further been submitted that on an application given by the opposite party no.5, a report was called for by the Revenue Authorities and his claim for being recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights as per Section 122-B (4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was allowed and his name continued in the revenue records, as per the order dated

28.12.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli.

6. It is for the first time, that the petitioner had moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, assailing the order dated 28.12.2006, on 22.7.2014. In the said proceedings the petitioner had moved an application for spot inspection and on 3.4.2017 the Area Lekhhpal had submitted his report and held that the petitioner has been in possession on the disputed land since 20-25 years. The opposite party no.5 had also participated in the proceedings and filed his objections.

7. After considering the aforesaid, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, by means of the impugned order dated 25.1.2022 has considered the fact that disputed land was settled in favour of opposite party no.5 after receiving the report of the Revenue Officers on 28.12.2006 and on an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. has been preferred after extremity long length of time. He has also considered the applicability of order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. and also considered the fact that said provision applies for recall of the exparte decree and in the previous proceeding the petitioner was not even a party and consequently such an application would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner. He has also considered the enquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli on 06.08.2021 citing that the name of the private respondent has been entered into the revenue record as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. In the said report it has also been submitted that the statements of number of villagers were also considered, all of who had stated that the land situated at 1204 M. area 0.506 hectares is in 3 WRIC No. 10238 of 2025 possession of Shiv Nandan son of Chhotey Lal for near about 20 years and at the time of inspection, the crop of wheat was standing on the disputed land. On merits he has found that there is no infirmity in the previous order passed on 27.12.2006 and it is a clear finding that Shivnandan was in possession of the land for about 10 years prior to passing of the said order, all the necessary ingredients of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are applicable while on the other hand, the petitioner was not found to be entitled to the benefit of the same and accordingly, on merits as well as on maintainability of the application, he dismissed the prayer of the petitioner by means of order dated 25.01.2022.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2022, had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The Additional Commissioner has duly considered all the grounds raised by the petitioner, assailing the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate and also the claim of the petitioner with regard to being declared as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights as per Section 122-B (4 F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The revisional authority also concurred with the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also considered the reports, which were available on record, wherein previously order was passed in favour of opposite party no.5, on

27.12.2006, after finding that Shvinandan was in possession of the land for 10 years prior and also that he fulfilled all the ingredients as provides under Section 122-B (4 F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore the benefits of the same was given to him.

9. He has also recorded that in the aforesaid circumstances the application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. has been rightly rejected and he did not find any infirmity in the same and consequently, has dismissed the revision.

10. Before this Court, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 2.9.2025 as well as the order dated 25.1.2022.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a report dated 3.4.2017, which was submitted by the Revenue Authority, is in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said report the petitioner 4 WRIC No. 10238 of 2025 claims the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

12. I also perused the said report, according to which, the Revenue Inspector had gone to the disputed property where one Narendra Kumar son of Ram Nath @ Bharosey as well as Ram Nath son of Chhottan were present on the said land and stated that Balram is in possession of the said land for last 25 years and in view of the oral statement of Narendra Kumar and others persons found on the said land the finding was returned that the petitioner is in possession of the said land. The said report is clearly doubtful as the antecedent of the persons who gave the statement has not been mentioned and merely on the oral version of two strangers the report has been given in favour of the petitioner. Such a report is unbelievable and unreliable and statement of stranger recorded and no finding can be given with regard to the possession of any individual on the agricultural land and accordingly there is no reason to believe the statement and findings recorded therein.

13. Considering entire controversy, it is noticed that the land was settled in favour of private respondents, by means of order dated 28.12.2006, where he was found to be a landless agricultural person and also was in possession over the disputed property. There was no opposition and objections filed against the order dated 28.12.2006 and an application was filed by the petitioner, after a lapse of more than 8 years.

14. Before this Court also there is no material filed by the petitioner or produced any revenue entries is in his favour recorded at any point of time, showing his possession over the said property. I further find that there is not infirmity in the order passed on 28.12.2006 in favour of private respondents and the petitioner is unable to demonstrate his possession over the said property, even otherwise the land already stands acquired for the purposes of construction of Ganga Expressway.

15. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and is, accordingly, dismissed. November 3, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents no. 1 to 3, Shri Sachin Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Mirza Ataulla Beg, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.09.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Revision No. 226/2022 (Balram Vs. Shivnandan), under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and order dated

25.01.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Lalganj, District Raebareli in Case No. 5085/2021 (Balram Vs. Shivnandan) under Section 209 H of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated

28.12.2006 passed by S.D.M, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that present dispute pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 1204/0.506 Hectare, situated at village Ugabhad, Pargana (Kheeron, Tahsil Lalganj, District Raebareli, which was recorded as Navin Parti and it is Gaon Sabha land.

4. He has further submitted that he belongs Scheduled Caste category and is a landless person and was in possession of the aforesaid land prior to 1985 and subsequently the said land has been acquired by the Ganga 2 WRIC No. 10238 of 2025 Expressway. The petitioner claims benefit of Section 122- (4F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) and states that in light of the aforesaid facts his name was to be recorded as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights

5. It has further been submitted that on an application given by the opposite party no.5, a report was called for by the Revenue Authorities and his claim for being recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights as per Section 122-B (4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was allowed and his name continued in the revenue records, as per the order dated

28.12.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli.

6. It is for the first time, that the petitioner had moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, assailing the order dated 28.12.2006, on 22.7.2014. In the said proceedings the petitioner had moved an application for spot inspection and on 3.4.2017 the Area Lekhhpal had submitted his report and held that the petitioner has been in possession on the disputed land since 20-25 years. The opposite party no.5 had also participated in the proceedings and filed his objections.

7. After considering the aforesaid, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, by means of the impugned order dated 25.1.2022 has considered the fact that disputed land was settled in favour of opposite party no.5 after receiving the report of the Revenue Officers on 28.12.2006 and on an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. has been preferred after extremity long length of time. He has also considered the applicability of order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. and also considered the fact that said provision applies for recall of the exparte decree and in the previous proceeding the petitioner was not even a party and consequently such an application would not be maintainable at the behest of the petitioner. He has also considered the enquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli on 06.08.2021 citing that the name of the private respondent has been entered into the revenue record as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. In the said report it has also been submitted that the statements of number of villagers were also considered, all of who had stated that the land situated at 1204 M. area 0.506 hectares is in 3 WRIC No. 10238 of 2025 possession of Shiv Nandan son of Chhotey Lal for near about 20 years and at the time of inspection, the crop of wheat was standing on the disputed land. On merits he has found that there is no infirmity in the previous order passed on 27.12.2006 and it is a clear finding that Shivnandan was in possession of the land for about 10 years prior to passing of the said order, all the necessary ingredients of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are applicable while on the other hand, the petitioner was not found to be entitled to the benefit of the same and accordingly, on merits as well as on maintainability of the application, he dismissed the prayer of the petitioner by means of order dated 25.01.2022.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2022, had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The Additional Commissioner has duly considered all the grounds raised by the petitioner, assailing the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate and also the claim of the petitioner with regard to being declared as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights as per Section 122-B (4 F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The revisional authority also concurred with the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also considered the reports, which were available on record, wherein previously order was passed in favour of opposite party no.5, on

27.12.2006, after finding that Shvinandan was in possession of the land for 10 years prior and also that he fulfilled all the ingredients as provides under Section 122-B (4 F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and therefore the benefits of the same was given to him.

9. He has also recorded that in the aforesaid circumstances the application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. has been rightly rejected and he did not find any infirmity in the same and consequently, has dismissed the revision.

10. Before this Court, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 2.9.2025 as well as the order dated 25.1.2022.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that a report dated 3.4.2017, which was submitted by the Revenue Authority, is in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the said report the petitioner 4 WRIC No. 10238 of 2025 claims the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

12. I also perused the said report, according to which, the Revenue Inspector had gone to the disputed property where one Narendra Kumar son of Ram Nath @ Bharosey as well as Ram Nath son of Chhottan were present on the said land and stated that Balram is in possession of the said land for last 25 years and in view of the oral statement of Narendra Kumar and others persons found on the said land the finding was returned that the petitioner is in possession of the said land. The said report is clearly doubtful as the antecedent of the persons who gave the statement has not been mentioned and merely on the oral version of two strangers the report has been given in favour of the petitioner. Such a report is unbelievable and unreliable and statement of stranger recorded and no finding can be given with regard to the possession of any individual on the agricultural land and accordingly there is no reason to believe the statement and findings recorded therein.

13. Considering entire controversy, it is noticed that the land was settled in favour of private respondents, by means of order dated 28.12.2006, where he was found to be a landless agricultural person and also was in possession over the disputed property. There was no opposition and objections filed against the order dated 28.12.2006 and an application was filed by the petitioner, after a lapse of more than 8 years.

14. Before this Court also there is no material filed by the petitioner or produced any revenue entries is in his favour recorded at any point of time, showing his possession over the said property. I further find that there is not infirmity in the order passed on 28.12.2006 in favour of private respondents and the petitioner is unable to demonstrate his possession over the said property, even otherwise the land already stands acquired for the purposes of construction of Ganga Expressway.

15. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and is, accordingly, dismissed. November 3, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench