✦ High Court of India · 17 Nov 2025

Ram Shankar vs State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief

Case Details High Court of India · 17 Nov 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
17 Nov 2025
Bench
ALOK MATHUR
Length
2,072 words

1. Heard Sri Rama Niwas Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent Nos. 1 to 6, and Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

2. The controversy in the present case is with regard to settlement of land situated at Gata No. 1367m area 1 Bigha 15 Biswa situated at Village and Pargana - Bijnour, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow which was recorded as Usar land in the revenue records and was brought within the limits of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation in the year 2019.

3. It has been submitted that a case under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was filed by respondent No. 8 i.e Rajjan Lal as well as petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow. The case of respondent No. 8 was numbered as Case No. 261 /2001. It was alleged by respondent No. 8 that he is in occupation and possession of the said land for the last 15 years and also that he belongs to scheduled caste and is also a resident of gaon sabha Bijnour.

4. The suit U/S 229-Bpreferred by Rajjan Lal was decreed by means of order dated 25.05.2005. Against the order dated 25.05.2005, State had filed an application for recall that they had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and consequently the recall application was 2 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025 allowed on 30.05.2005 and the order dated 25.05.2005 was recalled. The matter was considered afresh and the claim of respondent No. 8 was rejected by means of order dated 23.05.2006. It is against the order dated

23.5.2006 an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow which was decided on 26.09.2006 and it was observed that claims of the plaintiffs can be decided in appropriate proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

5. It has been submitted that similar orders was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Judicial III, Lucknow by order dated 25.04.2008. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the directions were issued by Additional Commissioner (Judicial-III) Lucknow that the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 be decided for grant of benefits and settlement of disputed land in terms of Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,

6. The petitioner and respondent No. 8 duly appeared before SDM, Sadar, Lucknow. The petitioner had raised several objections against respondent No. 8 that he was not resident of village Bijnour and in fact is ordinarily residing in village Kamlapur. He has further asserted that he has been appointed as Chowkidar and he cannot seek benefit under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

7. The main contention and objection raised by the petitioner is with regard to possession of the disputed land. The petitioner has asserted that the land situated at Gata no. 1376m/0.443 hect. situated at Gram Bijnour was in fact the petitioner was in actual physical possession of 10 Biswa of lands and therefore with regard to those 10 biswa of land rights of respondent No. 8 could not be settled under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The SDM after considering the rival submissions rejected the application of petitioner by means of order dated 12.06.2009 while on the other had allowed the application of respondent No. 8 by means of order dated 15.06.2009. Against the order dated 12.06.2009 the petitioner did not take recourse legal proceedings of appeal or revision, neither did he challenged the order dated 15.06.2009 before any authority. 3 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025

8. The petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances, moved an application U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of the settlement of the land in favour of respondent No. 8. He has stated that the entire proceedings which have culminated in the order dated 15.06.2009 in favour of respondent No. 8 was based on the report of Lekhpal and Kanoongo which are false and misconceived and also that Rajjan Lal is ordinarily a resident of Kamlapur and not Bijnour and therefore prayed for cancellation of the settlement of land in favour of respondent No. 8. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considering the grounds taken by petitioner duly considered the entire evidence which was adduced before him to the effect that respondent No. 8 is ordinarily a resident of Bijnour. He also considered the entire proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and found that it is only after due consideration of all the facts that necessary orders were passed on

15.06.2009 in favour of respondent No. 8 and further that it is on the report of the revenue authorities it was found that respondent No. 8 was in actual physical possession on the disputed land and therefore rejected the application of the petitioner by means of order dated 13.12.2013.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Mandal. The Additional Commissioner (Administration) has also gone through the grounds raised by the petitioner and returned a finding that there is no infirmity in the order passed under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 settling the disputed land in favour of respondent no. 8 and rejected the revision of the petitioner.

10. Before this Court, petitioner has urged the same ground which have taken before the authorities below, specially that the respondent No. 8 is not entitled for beneficial provision of Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Apart from which, he submits that there was substantial evidence on record that he otherwise possesses large tracks of land.

11. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand have opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that application of the petitioner U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not maintainable inasmuch as once an allotment has been made in regular proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) 4 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 where all the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered then in peculiar circumstances of the case and the application U/S 198 (4) of the Act were not maintainable. He further submits that when the order dated 12.06.2009 was passed against the petitioner on his application under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and he did not contest the matter any further it would amount to a concession and acceptance of the said order and in parallel proceedings U/S 198(4), the application of the petitioner could not be considered.

12. It has been further submitted that even the order dated 15.06.2009 passed in favour of respondent No. 8 was not challenged by the petitioner and it is in the aforesaid circumstances he cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law by resorting to an application under Section U/S 198 (4). Accordingly, it has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

13. I have heard rival contention of respective parties as well as perused the record. In the present case, it is not disputed that petitioner is also claiming a portion of the disputed land on which rights under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 have been settled in favour of respondent No. 8. The dispute had arisen initially when regular suits were filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 claiming the rights for settlement of the disputed land under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The fate of both the civil suits met the same fate at the appellate level by the Additional Commissioner, Judicial- III who directed that the claim of petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 be considered under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

14. Orders with regard to the respondent No. 8 were passed on 26.09.2006 while similar orders were passed for the petitioner on 25.04.2008. It is at this stage that both the applications were considered together. The application of petitioner and respondent No. 8 were duly considered by SDM and before passing of any orders report of the revenue authorities were obtained. 5 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025

15. The said case was decided in favour of respondent No. 8. According to which he was ordinarily resident of Village Bijnour and in occupation of the disputed land and therefore by means of order dated 15.06.2009 the application of respondent No. 8 was allowed while the claim of the petitioner were rejected by means of order dated 12.06.2009. It is relevant at this stage that the petitioner did not take the dispute any further neither did he challenge the rejection of his claim under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 nor did he challenge the order passed in favuor of respondent No. 8 where the rights under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 were settled in his favour.

16. The petitioner resorted to an application under Section 198(4) for cancellation of the settlement in favour of respondent No. 8. With regard to maintainability of such an application, this Court finds that the said issue has been dealt by a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Ram Shanker and another Vs. Board of Revenue (Writ B No. 15451 of 11996) decided on 04.03.2025, where this Court had relied upon another judgment in the case of Smt. Reshma Devi and others Vs. Commissioner and others reported in 2014 (122) RD 677. It is in para No. 11 in the case of Reshma Devi (Supra) that it has been considered that the rights under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are settled as per provisions of Section 195 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and any settlement made U/S 195 is accessible U/S 198(4) of the Act.

17. Accordingly, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that ordinarily any settlement made exercising powers under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 on application challenging the same would be maintainable U/S 198 (4). After observing the above, this Court further finds that the present dispute does not merely pertain to examination of the rights of the petitioner under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 but there is a rival contention of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 for settlement of rights under the aforesaid provisions.

18. This Court further finds that proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which was finalized by means of order dated 15.06.2009 were never assailed by the petitioner and even the rejection of 6 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025 the application of the petitioner on 12.06.2009 was never challenged any further. Accordingly, this Court finds that petitioner deliberately accepted the aforesaid orders and never challenged any further. Even though, undoubtedly he could have moved an application U/S 198(4) but the revenue authorities certainly had a right to examine the evidence which was already on record in proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and in the present case this Court finds that there is a categorical recording of the fact that the revenue authorities have given a finding in favour of respondent No. 8.

19. Accordingly, there was overwhelming evidence already on record in favour of respondent No. 8 and further it was held that petitioner could not lead any evidence which could enable the revenue authorities from taking a different view than had been taken in proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity either in the order of the S.D.M. rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 198(4) or of the Additional Commissioner Administration rejecting the revision. It is in the aforesaid circumstances no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. November 17, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rama Niwas Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent Nos. 1 to 6, and Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

2. The controversy in the present case is with regard to settlement of land situated at Gata No. 1367m area 1 Bigha 15 Biswa situated at Village and Pargana - Bijnour, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow which was recorded as Usar land in the revenue records and was brought within the limits of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation in the year 2019.

3. It has been submitted that a case under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was filed by respondent No. 8 i.e Rajjan Lal as well as petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow. The case of respondent No. 8 was numbered as Case No. 261 /2001. It was alleged by respondent No. 8 that he is in occupation and possession of the said land for the last 15 years and also that he belongs to scheduled caste and is also a resident of gaon sabha Bijnour.

4. The suit U/S 229-Bpreferred by Rajjan Lal was decreed by means of order dated 25.05.2005. Against the order dated 25.05.2005, State had filed an application for recall that they had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing and consequently the recall application was 2 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025 allowed on 30.05.2005 and the order dated 25.05.2005 was recalled. The matter was considered afresh and the claim of respondent No. 8 was rejected by means of order dated 23.05.2006. It is against the order dated

23.5.2006 an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow which was decided on 26.09.2006 and it was observed that claims of the plaintiffs can be decided in appropriate proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

5. It has been submitted that similar orders was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Judicial III, Lucknow by order dated 25.04.2008. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the directions were issued by Additional Commissioner (Judicial-III) Lucknow that the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 be decided for grant of benefits and settlement of disputed land in terms of Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,

6. The petitioner and respondent No. 8 duly appeared before SDM, Sadar, Lucknow. The petitioner had raised several objections against respondent No. 8 that he was not resident of village Bijnour and in fact is ordinarily residing in village Kamlapur. He has further asserted that he has been appointed as Chowkidar and he cannot seek benefit under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

7. The main contention and objection raised by the petitioner is with regard to possession of the disputed land. The petitioner has asserted that the land situated at Gata no. 1376m/0.443 hect. situated at Gram Bijnour was in fact the petitioner was in actual physical possession of 10 Biswa of lands and therefore with regard to those 10 biswa of land rights of respondent No. 8 could not be settled under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The SDM after considering the rival submissions rejected the application of petitioner by means of order dated 12.06.2009 while on the other had allowed the application of respondent No. 8 by means of order dated 15.06.2009. Against the order dated 12.06.2009 the petitioner did not take recourse legal proceedings of appeal or revision, neither did he challenged the order dated 15.06.2009 before any authority. 3 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025

8. The petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances, moved an application U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of the settlement of the land in favour of respondent No. 8. He has stated that the entire proceedings which have culminated in the order dated 15.06.2009 in favour of respondent No. 8 was based on the report of Lekhpal and Kanoongo which are false and misconceived and also that Rajjan Lal is ordinarily a resident of Kamlapur and not Bijnour and therefore prayed for cancellation of the settlement of land in favour of respondent No. 8. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considering the grounds taken by petitioner duly considered the entire evidence which was adduced before him to the effect that respondent No. 8 is ordinarily a resident of Bijnour. He also considered the entire proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and found that it is only after due consideration of all the facts that necessary orders were passed on

15.06.2009 in favour of respondent No. 8 and further that it is on the report of the revenue authorities it was found that respondent No. 8 was in actual physical possession on the disputed land and therefore rejected the application of the petitioner by means of order dated 13.12.2013.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Mandal. The Additional Commissioner (Administration) has also gone through the grounds raised by the petitioner and returned a finding that there is no infirmity in the order passed under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 settling the disputed land in favour of respondent no. 8 and rejected the revision of the petitioner.

10. Before this Court, petitioner has urged the same ground which have taken before the authorities below, specially that the respondent No. 8 is not entitled for beneficial provision of Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Apart from which, he submits that there was substantial evidence on record that he otherwise possesses large tracks of land.

11. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand have opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that application of the petitioner U/S 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not maintainable inasmuch as once an allotment has been made in regular proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) 4 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 where all the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered then in peculiar circumstances of the case and the application U/S 198 (4) of the Act were not maintainable. He further submits that when the order dated 12.06.2009 was passed against the petitioner on his application under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and he did not contest the matter any further it would amount to a concession and acceptance of the said order and in parallel proceedings U/S 198(4), the application of the petitioner could not be considered.

12. It has been further submitted that even the order dated 15.06.2009 passed in favour of respondent No. 8 was not challenged by the petitioner and it is in the aforesaid circumstances he cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law by resorting to an application under Section U/S 198 (4). Accordingly, it has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

13. I have heard rival contention of respective parties as well as perused the record. In the present case, it is not disputed that petitioner is also claiming a portion of the disputed land on which rights under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 have been settled in favour of respondent No. 8. The dispute had arisen initially when regular suits were filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 claiming the rights for settlement of the disputed land under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The fate of both the civil suits met the same fate at the appellate level by the Additional Commissioner, Judicial- III who directed that the claim of petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 be considered under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

14. Orders with regard to the respondent No. 8 were passed on 26.09.2006 while similar orders were passed for the petitioner on 25.04.2008. It is at this stage that both the applications were considered together. The application of petitioner and respondent No. 8 were duly considered by SDM and before passing of any orders report of the revenue authorities were obtained. 5 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025

15. The said case was decided in favour of respondent No. 8. According to which he was ordinarily resident of Village Bijnour and in occupation of the disputed land and therefore by means of order dated 15.06.2009 the application of respondent No. 8 was allowed while the claim of the petitioner were rejected by means of order dated 12.06.2009. It is relevant at this stage that the petitioner did not take the dispute any further neither did he challenge the rejection of his claim under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 nor did he challenge the order passed in favuor of respondent No. 8 where the rights under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 were settled in his favour.

16. The petitioner resorted to an application under Section 198(4) for cancellation of the settlement in favour of respondent No. 8. With regard to maintainability of such an application, this Court finds that the said issue has been dealt by a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Ram Shanker and another Vs. Board of Revenue (Writ B No. 15451 of 11996) decided on 04.03.2025, where this Court had relied upon another judgment in the case of Smt. Reshma Devi and others Vs. Commissioner and others reported in 2014 (122) RD 677. It is in para No. 11 in the case of Reshma Devi (Supra) that it has been considered that the rights under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 are settled as per provisions of Section 195 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and any settlement made U/S 195 is accessible U/S 198(4) of the Act.

17. Accordingly, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that ordinarily any settlement made exercising powers under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 on application challenging the same would be maintainable U/S 198 (4). After observing the above, this Court further finds that the present dispute does not merely pertain to examination of the rights of the petitioner under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 but there is a rival contention of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 for settlement of rights under the aforesaid provisions.

18. This Court further finds that proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which was finalized by means of order dated 15.06.2009 were never assailed by the petitioner and even the rejection of 6 WRIC No. 10498 of 2025 the application of the petitioner on 12.06.2009 was never challenged any further. Accordingly, this Court finds that petitioner deliberately accepted the aforesaid orders and never challenged any further. Even though, undoubtedly he could have moved an application U/S 198(4) but the revenue authorities certainly had a right to examine the evidence which was already on record in proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and in the present case this Court finds that there is a categorical recording of the fact that the revenue authorities have given a finding in favour of respondent No. 8.

19. Accordingly, there was overwhelming evidence already on record in favour of respondent No. 8 and further it was held that petitioner could not lead any evidence which could enable the revenue authorities from taking a different view than had been taken in proceedings under Section 122(B)(4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity either in the order of the S.D.M. rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 198(4) or of the Additional Commissioner Administration rejecting the revision. It is in the aforesaid circumstances no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. November 17, 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