LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue,

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that present dispute pertains to Gata No. 295 (Khata No. 6), situated at Village - Purwa, Pargana - Hisampur, Tehsil - Kaiserganj, District - Bahraich of which one Heera Lal S/o Late Sambhoo was recorded tenure holder.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner purchased 6.25 acres of land from the aforesaid Gata by means of registered sale deed dated 21.07.1967. It is submitted that after purchase of the said land, same came to be recorded in the name of petitioners. Subsequently, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act") came into effect in 1972 and proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated and it is stated that by means of order dated 16.11.1976, area of 5.53 acres of the said land was declared to be surplus.

4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during ceiling proceedings notice was served only to Heera Lal and petitioners were unaware of the said proceedings. It is submitted that during the consolidation operations the petitioners has filed their objections seeking relief that entire land purchased by the petitioners may be recorded in their name. The Consolidation Officer, duly considered the 2 WRIB No. 1051 of 2025 fact that as per operation of ceiling, the said land has been declared to be surplus and same cannot be recorded in the name of petitioners. The Consolidation Officer has further recorded that name of the petitioners is continuing in the revenue records from Fasli year 1375 onwards and therefore, was of the opinion that in case petitioners have any grievance with regard to land which has been declared to be surplus, they would have adequate remedy before the authorities under the Ceiling Act and not under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and rejected the application by means of order dated 21.12.2021. Subsequently, petitioners have filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation and before all the said forums, claim of petitioners was rejected taking into account the fact that the land has been declared surplus by operation of Ceiling Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petition has assailed all the three orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The petitioners have reiterated the arguments before this Court stating that they were not aware of the ceiling proceedings and only submits that the disputed land is still in possession of the petitioners.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition has has submitted that once land has been declared to be surplus under the Ceiling Act, then said land would devolve in the State Government by operation of law and no ownership, right or title can be claimed by the petitioner unless and until order passed by the prescribed authority is set aside or modified.

7. Again there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioners have not moved any application assailing the order declaring the land to be surplus under the Ceiling Act and therefore their objections under Section 9A, could not have been allowed by any of the authority under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. No other argument has been raised by the petitioners before this Court. This Court see no infirmity or error in the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities and therefore, present writ petition is devoid of merits. It is noticed that unless the order passed under the Ceiling Act is set aside, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioners. 3 WRIB No. 1051 of 2025

8. Apart from the above, this Court finds that despite the said land having been declared surplus in 1976, is still shown in the name of petitioners. This is serious issue and certainly this Court do not see as to why once land has been declared surplus, same continued to be recorded in the name of private individuals. Apart from the above, this Court finds that dispute relates to large tract of land, which despite being declared surplus is still recorded in the names of recorded tenure holders and not the State.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., respondent no. 1 to have an inquiry conducted and determine as to who is the authority/person responsible for such an action, inasmuch as in case land continued to be recorded in the name of private tenure holder, as it is liable to be sold to an innocent person who may not be aware that the said land has been declared surplus.

10. All the authorities who are responsible for the such lapse, should be proceeded against after seeking explanation from them.

11. Let necessary exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 shall submit his report to the Senior Registrar of this Court.

12. Office of the Chief Standing Counsel is directed to submit a copy of this order forthwith to respondent no. 1.

13. Present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

14. Despite the fact that present writ petition is dismissed, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall place the copy of inquiry report before this Court as and when it is received from respondent no. 1. November 21, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that present dispute pertains to Gata No. 295 (Khata No. 6), situated at Village - Purwa, Pargana - Hisampur, Tehsil - Kaiserganj, District - Bahraich of which one Heera Lal S/o Late Sambhoo was recorded tenure holder.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner purchased 6.25 acres of land from the aforesaid Gata by means of registered sale deed dated 21.07.1967. It is submitted that after purchase of the said land, same came to be recorded in the name of petitioners. Subsequently, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act") came into effect in 1972 and proceedings under the Ceiling Act were initiated and it is stated that by means of order dated 16.11.1976, area of 5.53 acres of the said land was declared to be surplus.

4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during ceiling proceedings notice was served only to Heera Lal and petitioners were unaware of the said proceedings. It is submitted that during the consolidation operations the petitioners has filed their objections seeking relief that entire land purchased by the petitioners may be recorded in their name. The Consolidation Officer, duly considered the 2 WRIB No. 1051 of 2025 fact that as per operation of ceiling, the said land has been declared to be surplus and same cannot be recorded in the name of petitioners. The Consolidation Officer has further recorded that name of the petitioners is continuing in the revenue records from Fasli year 1375 onwards and therefore, was of the opinion that in case petitioners have any grievance with regard to land which has been declared to be surplus, they would have adequate remedy before the authorities under the Ceiling Act and not under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and rejected the application by means of order dated 21.12.2021. Subsequently, petitioners have filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation and before all the said forums, claim of petitioners was rejected taking into account the fact that the land has been declared surplus by operation of Ceiling Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petition has assailed all the three orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The petitioners have reiterated the arguments before this Court stating that they were not aware of the ceiling proceedings and only submits that the disputed land is still in possession of the petitioners.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition has has submitted that once land has been declared to be surplus under the Ceiling Act, then said land would devolve in the State Government by operation of law and no ownership, right or title can be claimed by the petitioner unless and until order passed by the prescribed authority is set aside or modified.

7. Again there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioners have not moved any application assailing the order declaring the land to be surplus under the Ceiling Act and therefore their objections under Section 9A, could not have been allowed by any of the authority under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. No other argument has been raised by the petitioners before this Court. This Court see no infirmity or error in the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities and therefore, present writ petition is devoid of merits. It is noticed that unless the order passed under the Ceiling Act is set aside, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioners. 3 WRIB No. 1051 of 2025

8. Apart from the above, this Court finds that despite the said land having been declared surplus in 1976, is still shown in the name of petitioners. This is serious issue and certainly this Court do not see as to why once land has been declared surplus, same continued to be recorded in the name of private individuals. Apart from the above, this Court finds that dispute relates to large tract of land, which despite being declared surplus is still recorded in the names of recorded tenure holders and not the State.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., respondent no. 1 to have an inquiry conducted and determine as to who is the authority/person responsible for such an action, inasmuch as in case land continued to be recorded in the name of private tenure holder, as it is liable to be sold to an innocent person who may not be aware that the said land has been declared surplus.

10. All the authorities who are responsible for the such lapse, should be proceeded against after seeking explanation from them.

11. Let necessary exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 shall submit his report to the Senior Registrar of this Court.

12. Office of the Chief Standing Counsel is directed to submit a copy of this order forthwith to respondent no. 1.

13. Present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

14. Despite the fact that present writ petition is dismissed, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall place the copy of inquiry report before this Court as and when it is received from respondent no. 1. November 21, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench