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

Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 5 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.6.

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

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to allotment of land of gata No.352 in favour of 35 persons in Village Saraikhema, Pargana and Tehsil- Amethi, District Sultanpur along with predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents.

4. It has been submitted that the said allotment had taken place on

15.2.1974 and it is only in 2016 when some interference was caused to an alleged public pathway that the petitioner sought to obtain information with regard to the said allotment and subsequently had filed application under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code for setting aside the allotment on 15.2.1974. In the application preferred by the petitioner to the Collector, Amethi it was stated that the allotment has been made on gata No.352 area 0.126 hectare in favour of Smt. Sahja, wife of Ram Autar and even fraud has been committed in the mutation. He further submitted that the said 2 WRIB No. 1124 of 2025 persons are trying to occupy the only passage to the house of the petitioner. He further submits that the proceedings of allotment of the pattas was fraudulent and even proposal was fraudulently prepared and even report submitted by Naib Tehsildar was fraudulently made and approval was also fraudulent. With aforesaid allegations he had prayed for cancellation of the pattas granted on

15.2.1974. He submits that as per the report received on 7.2.1974 it has been submitted that allotment was made in favour of Harijans and and the allotees are not Harijans. He could not demonstrate as to how and in what manner the said conclusion has been drawn with regard to the allottees not being Harijan. There is no material on record which could indicate that the allottees were not Harijans. It has further been alleged that approval made by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate had not signed by him and was fraudulently done.

5. We do not find any material to support the contentions of the petitioner or that the proposal was not signed by the concerned official and merely after moving the said documents without making any inquiry such allegations with regard to grant of pattas has been leveled by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court has also examined the documents which have been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court and did not find any substance in the said allegations.

6. Apart form the above, the moot question is with regard to the delay in moving the application under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code for cancelling the pattas. It is noticed that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 128 of U.P.Revenue Code itself provides for period of limitation under sub clause 1 A which is five years from the date of allotment of a lease. In the present case, the application was moved after nearly 42 years and in this regard we find that once the period o limitation has been prescribed then unless and until the delay in filing the application can be condoned no such application could have been filed beyond the period prescribed in the said statute. 3 WRIB No. 1124 of 2025

7. It is also noticed that merely to overcome the statutory prescriptions provided under rule 1 A the ground of fraud has been taken by the petitioner and he has stated that once any order has been obtained by fraud then the same is non-est and void ab initio and the same cannot be assailed without adhering to the statutory prescription. To appreciate the arguments of the petitioner we have looked into the factual aspect of the matter pertaining to the allegations of fraud. We have already gone through the documents and also considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and find that there is no material to substantiate the allegations of fraud.

8. Assailing the allotment of patta after 42 years after such an extremely long length of time cannot be condoned specifically in such matters where statutory prescription is provided under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code where an application can be made only within a period of five years from the date of allotment. We find that it is the case of the petitioner that the ancestors of the petitioner are occupying the said land and consequently it cannot be said that they were not aware of the said allotment for a period of 42 years. We further find that there is no reason to indicate as to how the documents were sought to be obtained only in 2016 and immediately following the allotment the same could have been challenged by the petitioner or predecessors-in- interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the petitioner.

9. The Board of Revenue while considering the revision preferred by the petitioner has held that after issuance of notification under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, they are denuded of all the powers to adjudicate any controversy pertaining to cancellation of patta. We find that the ground taken by the revisionist in the revision preferred by the petitioner is clearly illegal and arbitrary and considering the statutory provisions, especially the provisions of Section 128 (5) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in this regard shall not apply. 4 WRIB No. 1124 of 2025

10. Only to consider the aspect as to whether the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh consideration before the Board of Revenue, this Court has looked into the order passed by District Magistrate and also considered the grounds taken by the petitioner. Accordingly, after consideration of the above, we do not find it a fit case for being remanded to the Board of Revenue for being considered afresh, especially considering the fact that the delay in moving the application would be fatal and no such inquiry can be initiated after extremely long length of 42 years and permitting the petitioner to continue with the aforesaid litigation would be merely an abuse of the process of the law and, therefore, in the interest of justice we do not ind it a fit case to be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for consideration afresh. The application of the petitioner was highly time barred apart from the fact that there is no provision for condonation of delay for which no satisfactory explanation has come forth from the petitioner.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is found devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. November 26, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 5 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.6.

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

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to allotment of land of gata No.352 in favour of 35 persons in Village Saraikhema, Pargana and Tehsil- Amethi, District Sultanpur along with predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents.

4. It has been submitted that the said allotment had taken place on

15.2.1974 and it is only in 2016 when some interference was caused to an alleged public pathway that the petitioner sought to obtain information with regard to the said allotment and subsequently had filed application under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code for setting aside the allotment on 15.2.1974. In the application preferred by the petitioner to the Collector, Amethi it was stated that the allotment has been made on gata No.352 area 0.126 hectare in favour of Smt. Sahja, wife of Ram Autar and even fraud has been committed in the mutation. He further submitted that the said 2 WRIB No. 1124 of 2025 persons are trying to occupy the only passage to the house of the petitioner. He further submits that the proceedings of allotment of the pattas was fraudulent and even proposal was fraudulently prepared and even report submitted by Naib Tehsildar was fraudulently made and approval was also fraudulent. With aforesaid allegations he had prayed for cancellation of the pattas granted on

15.2.1974. He submits that as per the report received on 7.2.1974 it has been submitted that allotment was made in favour of Harijans and and the allotees are not Harijans. He could not demonstrate as to how and in what manner the said conclusion has been drawn with regard to the allottees not being Harijan. There is no material on record which could indicate that the allottees were not Harijans. It has further been alleged that approval made by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate had not signed by him and was fraudulently done.

5. We do not find any material to support the contentions of the petitioner or that the proposal was not signed by the concerned official and merely after moving the said documents without making any inquiry such allegations with regard to grant of pattas has been leveled by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court has also examined the documents which have been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court and did not find any substance in the said allegations.

6. Apart form the above, the moot question is with regard to the delay in moving the application under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code for cancelling the pattas. It is noticed that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 128 of U.P.Revenue Code itself provides for period of limitation under sub clause 1 A which is five years from the date of allotment of a lease. In the present case, the application was moved after nearly 42 years and in this regard we find that once the period o limitation has been prescribed then unless and until the delay in filing the application can be condoned no such application could have been filed beyond the period prescribed in the said statute. 3 WRIB No. 1124 of 2025

7. It is also noticed that merely to overcome the statutory prescriptions provided under rule 1 A the ground of fraud has been taken by the petitioner and he has stated that once any order has been obtained by fraud then the same is non-est and void ab initio and the same cannot be assailed without adhering to the statutory prescription. To appreciate the arguments of the petitioner we have looked into the factual aspect of the matter pertaining to the allegations of fraud. We have already gone through the documents and also considered the arguments raised by the petitioner and find that there is no material to substantiate the allegations of fraud.

8. Assailing the allotment of patta after 42 years after such an extremely long length of time cannot be condoned specifically in such matters where statutory prescription is provided under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code where an application can be made only within a period of five years from the date of allotment. We find that it is the case of the petitioner that the ancestors of the petitioner are occupying the said land and consequently it cannot be said that they were not aware of the said allotment for a period of 42 years. We further find that there is no reason to indicate as to how the documents were sought to be obtained only in 2016 and immediately following the allotment the same could have been challenged by the petitioner or predecessors-in- interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the petitioner.

9. The Board of Revenue while considering the revision preferred by the petitioner has held that after issuance of notification under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, they are denuded of all the powers to adjudicate any controversy pertaining to cancellation of patta. We find that the ground taken by the revisionist in the revision preferred by the petitioner is clearly illegal and arbitrary and considering the statutory provisions, especially the provisions of Section 128 (5) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in this regard shall not apply. 4 WRIB No. 1124 of 2025

10. Only to consider the aspect as to whether the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh consideration before the Board of Revenue, this Court has looked into the order passed by District Magistrate and also considered the grounds taken by the petitioner. Accordingly, after consideration of the above, we do not find it a fit case for being remanded to the Board of Revenue for being considered afresh, especially considering the fact that the delay in moving the application would be fatal and no such inquiry can be initiated after extremely long length of 42 years and permitting the petitioner to continue with the aforesaid litigation would be merely an abuse of the process of the law and, therefore, in the interest of justice we do not ind it a fit case to be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for consideration afresh. The application of the petitioner was highly time barred apart from the fact that there is no provision for condonation of delay for which no satisfactory explanation has come forth from the petitioner.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is found devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. November 26, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench