Consolidation Authorities Cannot Bypass Final Order Vesting Land in State Merely on Dubious Heirship Claims: Allahabad High Court

Petitioner failed to challenge 1984 order vesting land in Gaon Sabha—subsequent claims through succession or Will lack credibility and legal foundation  - Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, in Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Others, dismissed a writ petition seeking to reclaim agricultural land vested with the State in 1984. Justice Jaspreet Singh held that “once the land has been vested in the State under a final and unchallenged order under Section 194 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the consolidation authorities cannot sit in appeal over that order or undo it through later proceedings based on unsubstantiated heirship claims.” 
 
The dispute relates to plots measuring 4.3120 hectares situated in village Para, District 
Sitapur, originally recorded in the name of Ruda Singh. Following his death in 1979, the Sub Divisional Officer passed an order dated 17.09.1984 under Section 194 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act declaring that Ruda Singh had died intestate and without any heir, and the land was vested with the Gaon Sabha. 
 
Decades later, the petitioner, Chandan Singh, claiming to be Ruda Singh’s nephew, challenged this vesting through objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Consolidation Officer allowed his objections in 2016, and upon further appeals, the Settlement Officer confirmed the findings. However, revisions were filed by the State and other parties, leading to a 2024 order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which reversed the lower orders and restored the vesting in the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner approached the High Court to challenge that decision. 
  
Justice Jaspreet Singh began by emphasizing that the 1984 order remained unchallenged for decades. “The order dated 17.09.1984 vesting land in the Gaon Sabha was not assailed by the petitioner in any substantive proceedings, and any challenge made was against a consequential mutation order dated 25.11.2017.” 
 
The Court noted that “even the revision allegedly filed by the petitioner in 2018 was not against the main order of 1984 but against a consequential mutation; and the same was abated in 2022 due to ongoing consolidation.” It observed, “The basic premise of the submission that the 1984 order was challenged loses its substratum… no benefit can be derived by the petitioner by merely challenging a consequential order.” 
 
Regarding the petitioner’s assertion of being a legal heir, the Court remarked, “No documentary evidence of heirship has been placed on record by the petitioner. The only document filed is a vague and undated certificate by the Gram Pradhan which carries no legal weight or evidentiary value.” It further noted, “There is no mention of dates of death of the supposed brothers and sisters of Ruda Singh. The petitioner has not established the family pedigree or death details essential under Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act to determine succession.” 
 
Addressing identity issues, the Court held, “There is a massive discrepancy in the petitioner’s age. As per the 2004 objection, his age was 50 years, which would make his year of birth 1954, whereas the Aadhar card submitted now shows 1973—nearly a 20year gap.” 
 
It also observed with concern that “after his name was entered in the land records in 2016, the petitioner executed gift deeds in favor of Ram Kumar Shukla and his family— individuals with a long criminal background and close involvement in the same case.” Further, “The person who appeared as witness in these gift deeds—Devakar Prasad—is also the pairokar (litigation friend) of the petitioner in the present writ petition. This raises serious doubts about the real beneficiary behind the litigation.” 
 
The Court rejected the argument that other nephews' abandonment of their claims in 1984 could support the petitioner’s claim. “Once Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh, and Bharat Singh had contested the 1984 proceedings and failed to challenge the final order vesting the land in the Gaon Sabha, it is not open to the petitioner to now revive their claims indirectly.” 
 
The Court concluded, “The entire manner in which the case was built—shifting stands from succession to unregistered will, use of dubious documents, suppression of vital facts, and immediate transfer of land after mutation—all point towards a deliberate attempt to usurp government land through manipulation of legal processes.” 
 

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that “the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are vitiated by non-consideration of the earlier binding order of 1984, lack of cogent evidence, and suppression of material facts.” 
 
Justice Jaspreet Singh concluded, “The Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly corrected the errors in earlier orders, and the petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. The interim order stands vacated. Costs are made easy.” 

Date of Decision: 27 March 2025