The Allahabad High Court has held that once an area is notified under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act and any land is categorised as a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, then the State becomes a necessary party in the matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha.

The Petitioner had approached the High Court questioning the impugned order relying on the judgment and order of the Apex Court in Shivraji & others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others (1997) wherein it has been held that it is not open for the authorities to review/recall their final orders, passed in proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in exercise of their inherent power.

The Single Bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan held, “In view of the various provision quoted herein above, this Court finds that once the area is notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act then by virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation authorities acquires the right to direct that any land vested in the State Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local body authority duly recorded in its name and in the said circumstances any land which has been categorized as a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the State becomes a necessary party in matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha.”

Advocate Pushpendra Kumar represented the Petitioner while Central Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The dispute was with regard to a land situated at villationer okhari, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, which was allotted during the course of consolidation proceedings in favour of the petitioner vide an order in 1996 on a valuation of 10 paise, where after it was alleged that the name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records and since the petitioner was in occupation, he continued to be in possession on the aforesaid land till date. Against the order dated, an appeal was preferred, but the said order was confirmed by dismissal of the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr Camp Hathras.

Initially, one Chaturbhuj Singh had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the same was withdrawn and subsequently the newly elected Pradhan- Neelam Kumari had filed restoration application in revision filed by the erstwhile Pradhan Chaturbhuj Singh, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated May 9, 2025 and where after the impugned order was passed setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

The stand of the Gram Pradhan was that, by changing the valuation of the plots in question, they had suffered a loss of 0.520 hectares, and the proceedings initiated by the erstwhile Pradhan, which were subsequently withdrawn by him, could not have been done as on the said date, one Neelam Kumari was the elected Pradhan. In the aforesaid conspectus of the facts, the recall application was allowed by the impugned order. It was being contested that the land in question was a cremation ground and accordingly, no valuation could be fixed with respect to a ground which was recorded as public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the Revenue Code.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that there were various instances where an elected Pradhan initiates proceedings raising a cloud over the title of a property and after substantial litigation with the change of Pradhan or just before the end of the tenure of the said Pradhan who had raised objections, the proceedings were withdrawn at his behest, giving at times unwarranted benefits to an individual and loss to the Government.

“It is also to be noted here that Gram Sabha is only the custodian of the land and not the owner and as such it is high time to determine whether the State is a necessary party in proceedings specially when the context is possibly with respect to a land which is a public utility land or a State land. The present case is also a case, where the context is possibly with respect to a land, which was used as a cremation ground and as such this Court finds it appropriate that the question, as to whether State is a necessary party, is to be considered”, it added.

The Bench further noticed that after the date of vesting of all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh is vested in the State by virtue of Section 4 notification in the gazette; and as declared under Section 59 of the Revenue Code, 2006 that certain kind of land which was vested in the State shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and other local bodies as the ease may be. “...consequentially it follows that a land which is vested in the Gaon Sabha by the State Government, the right of the Gaon Sabha and the State Government are inseparable and therefore, I do not see any harm if the State Government can be said to be a necessary party”, the Bench stated.

“As a matter of fact, the State Government can intervene to protect the rights of the Gaon Sabha; if the Gaon Sabha fails to take action or performs its duties as is also clear from Section 71 and 72 of the Code, 2006. Moreover, I find that the sole reliance and expectation from an elected Pradhan, in given circumstances may not do justification and it may become imperative that the State Government may also be impleaded as a necessary party”, the Bench held.

The Bench was of the view that once the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation had attained finality, the said fact along with the consideration pertaining to the plea, as to whether, the D.D.C. has powers to review its own order, ought to have been considered along with the plea of the State, as to whether a fraud was played upon, by not contesting the proceedings. It was further noticed that the Gaon Sabha was only represented by Pradhan, who kept on changing the stand, and as such, the true owner, who was the State, became a necessary part.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras, the Bench directed expeditious disposal of the case preferably within a period of two months.

The Bench ordered, “The revisional court shall also adjudicate on the question of its own jurisdiction, as to whether, a review/recall application can be entertained, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shivraji (supra) and also the judgment and order dated 23.03.2024 passed in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 (Ravendra Singh vs. D.D.C. and others), while considering the plea of the State, pertaining to any fraud being involved.”

“State may be directed to be impleaded as a necessary party before proceeding in the matter”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Ravendra Singh v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:186308)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan

Respondent: Central Standing Counsel, Advocate Krishna Kant Singh

Click here to read/download Order









Allahabad High Court

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.