Gaya Prasad Yadav v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And Others

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava : : C.S.C. Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to Khata No. 841, 842 and 843, which were recorded as "Ziman-4" as asami in the name of Ram Deen who was father of Suraj Bali and grand father of petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner's father has filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for declaration as bhoomidhar over the plot no. 842 and 843 and rest of Khata No. 325. It is stated that Khata No. 325 Gata Nos. 754, 758, 759, 760, 770, 996, 805, 842 and 843 were recorded in the name of Budai S/o Kamasi, Gokul S/o Ganeshi, Swami Nath, Amarnath and Jagdish S/o Ayodhya and Suraj bali S/o Ram Deen.

4. It is next submitted that at the stage of preparation of Form-5, shares were divided amongst the aforesaid Suraj Bali S/o Ram Deen who had filed objections under Section 9A(2) before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and stated that Khata No. 842 and 843 are sold by his father while he did not contest the fact that remaining land is ancestral land and there was compromise between the parties. The Consolidation Officer has recorded the evidence of the parties as well as Villagers and 2 WRIB No. 1121 of 2025 decided the dispute by means of order dated 20.03.2025. He has rejected the objections preferred by Suraj Bali and passed orders for mutation in Khata No. 325, where name of Budai has been deleted and in his place directed for recording name of Ram Dulare S/o Budai. While Khata No. 325 in Gata No. in Khata No. 842 and 843, he has allotted shares giving Suraj Bali 8/9 share, Amar Nath 1/18, Swaminath 1/18. Remaining Gatas of Khata No. 325 were divided in the manner that Badri got 1/6 share, Dulare 1/6 share, Surya Bali 1/2 share, Gokul 1/6 share, Swaminath 1/18 share, Amarnath 1/18 share and Jagdish 1/18 share, by means of order dated 20.03.1985.

5. Aggrieved by order dated 20.03.1985, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) where Surya Bali was respondent and appeal was filed by the private respondent nos. 4 to 9. The Appellate Court also taking into account the judgment and decree passed in the proceedings under Section 229B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, where statement of Suraj Bali was recorded, from which it is evident that all the co-tenure holders had a share in the property situated on Gata No. 842 and 753 and it was held that any order passed in regular proceedings was binding on the Consolidation authorities.

6. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while allowing the appeal, returned finding that it is dispute of co-tenancy and the disputed property is ancestral property and all the parties have been given their share of the property. He has set aside the operation of order where certain gatas have been directed to be recorded exclusively in the name of Suraj Bali and stated that such a finding was infirm, illegal and arbitrary in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts. He allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated

30.09.1985, passed by the Consolidation Officer.

7. Surya Bali has filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by means of impugned order dated 14.08.2025. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has again re- appreciated the entire set of facts and also perused the relevant revenue records and after due examination has affirmed the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), to the effect that all the parties to the dispute come from the same family tree and have common ancestor. 3 WRIB No. 1121 of 2025 He has further found that the disputed property is ancestral property and all the persons were entitled to share in the said property. He has further taken note of the fact that the property has been acquired by Suraj Bali independently, having been recorded in his name and Suraj Bali has given different statements at different stages of the litigation and his stand has never been consistent. He has further recorded the fact that Gata No. 842 and 843 like rest of the other property is ancestral property of each and all the co tenure holders have right and interest in the said property and accordingly has fixed the shares in accordance with the family tree.

8. The petitioner while assailing both the impugned orders has again reiterated the stand that for number of years his name was recorded exclusively in the revenue records and on the basis of such long standing entries the authorities have committed grave illegality in rejecting contention of the petitioner and directing for recording his name on the disputed land alongwith all the other co-sharers.

9. When a pointed query has been made to the petitioner to indicate as to how his name can be exclusively recorded against any of the land, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming.

10. It is not the case of the petitioner that said land has been purchased by him by any registered sale deed or has been conferred upon him by any previous recorded tenure holder. In absence of any legal or valid claim for exclusive possession over the disputed property, claim of petitioner cannot be accepted.

11. On the contrary, the respondents have been able to demonstrate that they all come from common ancestor and also that the disputed property is ancestral property and all the tenure holders have right, share and interest in the said property. Substantial evidence was lead in this regard before all the authorities, who rejected claim of the petitioner and accepted contention of the private respondents. No other ground has been urged before this Court by the petitioner.

12. In the light of above, this Court do not find any material to take a different view from what has been taken by the revenue authorities. This Court do not find any ground for interfering in the finding that disputed 4 WRIB No. 1121 of 2025 property was ancestral property and that same has been divided amongst the members of the family as is evident by the family tree which has been accepted by all the authorities.

13. In the light of above, no interference is called for in the present case. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. November 24, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava : : C.S.C. Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to Khata No. 841, 842 and 843, which were recorded as "Ziman-4" as asami in the name of Ram Deen who was father of Suraj Bali and grand father of petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner's father has filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for declaration as bhoomidhar over the plot no. 842 and 843 and rest of Khata No. 325. It is stated that Khata No. 325 Gata Nos. 754, 758, 759, 760, 770, 996, 805, 842 and 843 were recorded in the name of Budai S/o Kamasi, Gokul S/o Ganeshi, Swami Nath, Amarnath and Jagdish S/o Ayodhya and Suraj bali S/o Ram Deen.

4. It is next submitted that at the stage of preparation of Form-5, shares were divided amongst the aforesaid Suraj Bali S/o Ram Deen who had filed objections under Section 9A(2) before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and stated that Khata No. 842 and 843 are sold by his father while he did not contest the fact that remaining land is ancestral land and there was compromise between the parties. The Consolidation Officer has recorded the evidence of the parties as well as Villagers and 2 WRIB No. 1121 of 2025 decided the dispute by means of order dated 20.03.2025. He has rejected the objections preferred by Suraj Bali and passed orders for mutation in Khata No. 325, where name of Budai has been deleted and in his place directed for recording name of Ram Dulare S/o Budai. While Khata No. 325 in Gata No. in Khata No. 842 and 843, he has allotted shares giving Suraj Bali 8/9 share, Amar Nath 1/18, Swaminath 1/18. Remaining Gatas of Khata No. 325 were divided in the manner that Badri got 1/6 share, Dulare 1/6 share, Surya Bali 1/2 share, Gokul 1/6 share, Swaminath 1/18 share, Amarnath 1/18 share and Jagdish 1/18 share, by means of order dated 20.03.1985.

5. Aggrieved by order dated 20.03.1985, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) where Surya Bali was respondent and appeal was filed by the private respondent nos. 4 to 9. The Appellate Court also taking into account the judgment and decree passed in the proceedings under Section 229B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, where statement of Suraj Bali was recorded, from which it is evident that all the co-tenure holders had a share in the property situated on Gata No. 842 and 753 and it was held that any order passed in regular proceedings was binding on the Consolidation authorities.

6. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while allowing the appeal, returned finding that it is dispute of co-tenancy and the disputed property is ancestral property and all the parties have been given their share of the property. He has set aside the operation of order where certain gatas have been directed to be recorded exclusively in the name of Suraj Bali and stated that such a finding was infirm, illegal and arbitrary in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts. He allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated

30.09.1985, passed by the Consolidation Officer.

7. Surya Bali has filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by means of impugned order dated 14.08.2025. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has again re- appreciated the entire set of facts and also perused the relevant revenue records and after due examination has affirmed the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), to the effect that all the parties to the dispute come from the same family tree and have common ancestor. 3 WRIB No. 1121 of 2025 He has further found that the disputed property is ancestral property and all the persons were entitled to share in the said property. He has further taken note of the fact that the property has been acquired by Suraj Bali independently, having been recorded in his name and Suraj Bali has given different statements at different stages of the litigation and his stand has never been consistent. He has further recorded the fact that Gata No. 842 and 843 like rest of the other property is ancestral property of each and all the co tenure holders have right and interest in the said property and accordingly has fixed the shares in accordance with the family tree.

8. The petitioner while assailing both the impugned orders has again reiterated the stand that for number of years his name was recorded exclusively in the revenue records and on the basis of such long standing entries the authorities have committed grave illegality in rejecting contention of the petitioner and directing for recording his name on the disputed land alongwith all the other co-sharers.

9. When a pointed query has been made to the petitioner to indicate as to how his name can be exclusively recorded against any of the land, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming.

10. It is not the case of the petitioner that said land has been purchased by him by any registered sale deed or has been conferred upon him by any previous recorded tenure holder. In absence of any legal or valid claim for exclusive possession over the disputed property, claim of petitioner cannot be accepted.

11. On the contrary, the respondents have been able to demonstrate that they all come from common ancestor and also that the disputed property is ancestral property and all the tenure holders have right, share and interest in the said property. Substantial evidence was lead in this regard before all the authorities, who rejected claim of the petitioner and accepted contention of the private respondents. No other ground has been urged before this Court by the petitioner.

12. In the light of above, this Court do not find any material to take a different view from what has been taken by the revenue authorities. This Court do not find any ground for interfering in the finding that disputed 4 WRIB No. 1121 of 2025 property was ancestral property and that same has been divided amongst the members of the family as is evident by the family tree which has been accepted by all the authorities.

13. In the light of above, no interference is called for in the present case. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. November 24, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench