WRIB/1034/2025 of MOHD. ALIM KHAN Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, HARDOI CAMP, UNNAO AND OTHERS on 14 November 2025

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

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Rameshwar with regard to the land situated at gata No.1251 area 2 bigha and gata No.1252, area 6 biswa in village Bibipur Chiryari, Pargana Mohan, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao. It is the case of the petitioner that they are the recorded tenure holders of the said land from the time of ancestors and even their names are recorded in the revenue records pertaining to fasli year 1392 to 1398.

3. The proceedings in the present case were going on before Consolation Officer, Antim Bhulekh, Unnao in which proceedings an application for impleadment was preferred by the petitioner. In the said proceedings according to the Consolidation Officer the said land was recorded in the name of Mathura Prasad in the revenue records since fasali year 1398 on-wards and subsequently the said land was sold by Mathura Prasad in favour of Sukhdei and subsequently the land was inherited by Babulal from Sukhdei. It is

4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohd. Alim Khan .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi Camp, Unnao And Others .....Respondent(s)

in the aforesaid circumstances that an application for making him a party was moved. On perusal of the application preferred by the petitioner, we find that it is only stated that name of ancestors of the petitioner has been recorded even prior to coming into force of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and on the said basis submits that he is the owner of the said land and one Mathura Prasad and the other persons succeeded from Mathura Prasad and thereafter the land was sold by Mathura Prasad to Sukhdei and her application for mutation was rejected and the land continued to be recorded in the name of Mathura Prasad.

When no favourable orders were passe by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 31.8.2015, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who considering the fact that undoubtedly from perusal of the records the land was recorded in the name of Mohd. Alim Khan son of Mohd. Haneef but his name was deleted from the revenue records and the name of Mathura Prasad son of Narayan was recorded on the basis of registered sale deed and it is in the aforesaid circumstances that name of Mohd. Alim was deleted and in his place name of Mathura Prasad was entered into revenue records against the land of gata No.1251 area 2 bigha and gata No.1252, area 6 biswa in village Bibipur Chiryari, Pargana Mohan, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao. It is in aforesaid circumstances that we find that the petitioners who are claiming right, title and interest in the disputed land did not have any right, title or interested after registration of the sale deed in favour of Mathura Prasad and accordingly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

5. Against the order dated 29.12.2016 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was preferred before Deputy Director of Consolidation who also confirmed the findings of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer and rejected the revision by means of order dated 7.4.2016.

6. WRIB No. 1034 of 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sale deed which was executed in the name of Mathura Prasad and has been challenged by the petitioner in a suit No.152/2017 which is pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Unnao.

7. Accordingly, from the aforesaid, it is evident that firstly name of Mohd. Alim son of Mohd. Haneef was deleted from the revenue records in pursuance of the sale deeds executed by Mohd. Haneef and thereafter name of Mathura Prasad, the purchaser, came to be recorded in the revenue records. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed, it is evident that the sale deed must have been produced before the other consolidation authorities on the basis of which name of Mathura Prasad came to be entered in the revenue records. Accordingly, unless and until the sale deed is cancelled the prayer of the petitioner under the said proceedings before the consolidation authority cannot be accepted in as much as his name stands deleted on the basis of registered sale deed.

8. It is for the aforesaid reasons that we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The grievance raised by the petitioner is already pending before the civil court and undoubtedly any order passed in favour of the petitioner will bind the revenue authorities when proper application is made in this regard.

9. Subject to aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

10. November 14, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1034 of 2025

(Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench