Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Recall Order in Consolidation Dispute; Declares State a Necessary Party in Gaon Sabha Land Cases Under U.P. Revenue Code
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan held that the State Government is a ‘necessary party’ in all consolidation matters relating to Gaon Sabha lands and properties, particularly where such lands are classified as public utility lands, including cremation grounds under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Court set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras, which had recalled an earlier decision already upheld by the High Court in 2024, observing that consolidation authorities lack the power to review or recall their final orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The case was remanded for reconsideration within two months, with directions to implead the State Government and examine questions of jurisdiction and possible fraud.
The case concerns a dispute over a parcel of land situated in village Amokhari, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras. The land was allotted to the petitioner during consolidation proceedings through an order dated 15 January 1996 and valued at ten paise, following which the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records.
An appeal challenging the allotment was later filed and dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in 1999. The dismissal was subsequently affirmed in revision on 30 March 2010. The Gram Sabha, through its Pradhan, later sought recall of the 2010 order, alleging that changes in valuation had resulted in a loss of 0.520 hectares and that the earlier proceedings had been withdrawn by a former Pradhan who was no longer in office at that time.
The petitioner opposed the recall, contending that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to review or recall their final orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The State authorities submitted that the disputed land functioned as a cremation ground and was therefore a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for which valuation could not be altered.
Affidavits were filed by the Principal Secretaries of the Revenue and Panchayati Raj Departments outlining relevant provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, to show that the State Government must be joined as a party in matters concerning Gaon Sabha or public utility lands. The record also included reference to an inquiry report dated 9 December 2024 regarding the prior consolidation proceedings and orders.
The Court recorded that the petitioner relied on the earlier judgment, noting that “the consolidation authorities have got no jurisdiction to review his order in as much as there is no provision under the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act or Land Revenue Act conferring the review jurisdiction upon the consolidation courts.” It noted that despite this finality, the Deputy Director “has again set aside the said order dated 30.03.2010, which has already attained finality up to the stage of the Hon’ble High Court.”
The Court observed that the State’s affidavit stated that “the joinder of the State as a co-respondent in consolidation matters concerning Gaon Sabha lands and properties is essential, in order to protect the interest of the State,” and referred to statutory provisions, particularly Section 213 of the Code, which “states that the State Government shall be made a party to any suit which is instituted by or against the Gram Panchayat or local authority under the Code.”
On the nature of Gaon Sabha land, the Court stated: “Gram Sabha is only the custodian of the land and not the owner… it is the State who can do so,” citing Gaon Sabha Raison. It further noted instances “where an elected Pradhan initiates proceedings raising a cloud over the title of a property and after substantial litigation… the proceedings are withdrawn at his behest, giving at times unwarranted benefits to an individual and loss to the Government.”
The Court highlighted that the land was alleged to be a cremation ground and that “no valuation can be made over with respect to a public utility land,” making the State’s participation necessary. It stated that “the right of the Gaon Sabha and the State Government are inseparable,” and that the question whether the land was public utility land required proper adjudication.
Regarding review powers, the Court observed that the Deputy Director “has also not considered that once the order dated 30.03.2010 has attained finality… can any application for recall/review be said to be maintainable,” adding that “the ratio of Shivraji (supra) has also not been considered.” It held that the issues of jurisdiction, fraud, and non-joinder of a necessary party required fresh examination.
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras with the following directions:- “to take an expeditious decision, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order regarding the application dated 25.10.2021 filed by the Gram Pradhan in Revision No.76/341 under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, against the order dated 30.03.2010.
“The revisional court shall also adjudicate on the question of its own jurisdiction, as to whether, a review/recall application can be entertained… 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,” and directed transmission of the order to concerned authorities.
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Krishna Kant Singh
Case Title: Ravendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Others
Neutral Citation:2025:AHC:186308
Case Number: Writ-B No. 2774 of 2025
Bench: Justice Siddharth Nandan
