Superior Authority Can Recall Orders Passed Without Hearing Affected Parties: Allahabad High Court Upholds Restoration of Consolidation Revisions

“Where powers or duties are to be exercised by any authority under the Act, such powers may also be exercised by any authority superior to it” –  On January 22, 2026, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai) delivered a significant ruling in Shanti Devi vs. Additional Collector (Administration)/Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (Writ-B No. 21333 of 2013), reaffirming the wide powers of revisional authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Court upheld the Deputy Director of Consolidation’s decision dated 14.03.2013, allowing a restoration application, condoning delay, and reviving previously decided revisions under Section 48 of the Act, on the ground that they had been decided without impleading an affected tenure-holder.

The Court held that non-impleadment of a necessary party, despite her being part of earlier consolidation litigation, justified the exercise of restorative jurisdiction by the revisional authority to avoid miscarriage of justice and to ensure fair adjudication on merits.

Deputy Director's Restoration Order Held Valid Exercise of Revisional Powers to Correct Injustice

“Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised the jurisdiction... under Section 44-A” – Observes Court while dismissing writ challenge

The case arose from a dispute over agricultural land—specifically Plot No. 661, situated in Bareilly District—involving competing claims derived from sale deeds executed by Ram Bharosey, whose title itself had been discredited in prior consolidation litigation.

Petitioner Shanti Devi’s husband, Chhavinath, claimed rights over the land based on a sale deed dated 8.6.2001, while respondents no. 3 to 5 staked claim through an earlier sale deed dated 21.12.1999, also from Ram Bharosey. However, the core legal complication stemmed from the fact that Ram Bharosey’s father, Sohan Lal, had already been held to have no title over the relevant Khata No. 99Aa by consolidation authorities in a judgment upheld through final orders dated 31.03.1999. The name of Chaina Devi (respondent no. 2) and Chuno Devi had been affirmed as rightful tenure-holders, and Sohan Lal’s name expunged.

Despite this background, a subsequent order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer directed recording the names of both Chhavinath and respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the sale deeds. Crucially, Chaina Devi, whose recorded rights were directly impacted by this decision, was not impleaded in the proceedings.

In response, Chaina Devi filed restoration applications, along with applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, before both the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, exercising revisional powers under Section 48 read with Section 44-A, allowed the restoration, quashed the impugned orders of 3.9.2012 and 7.11.2012, and restored the revisions to their original numbers for adjudication after due impleadment.

Prior Final Adjudication of Title Must Be Respected in Subsequent Proceedings

The High Court placed emphasis on the finality of earlier proceedings under Section 9-A(2) and Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, where it had been conclusively held that Sohan Lal had no right or title over Khata No. 99Aa, thereby invalidating any sale deeds executed by his son Ram Bharosey with respect to the same.

Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed:

“In the earlier proceeding initiated under section-9-A(2)... Sohan Lal, father of Ram Bharosey, cannot be recorded over Khata No-99Aa... name of Sohan Lal was expunged and names of Chaina Devi as well as Chuno Devi remained ordered to be recorded as recorded in basic year.”

Given this background, the subsequent orders allowing the names of Chhavinath and others to be recorded—without impleading the previously recorded tenure-holders—was, in the Court’s view, legally unsustainable. The High Court noted that res judicata principles, while not strictly applicable, do operate to preclude inconsistent findings in the face of binding earlier orders.

High Court Declines to Interfere Under Article 226; Emphasizes Natural Justice

Rejecting arguments that the Deputy Director lacked jurisdiction or that the restoration plea was time-barred, the Court upheld the justification of restoration in light of natural justice, holding that Chaina Devi had not been heard despite being an affected party.

Justice Rai observed:

“The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside the order... as Deputy Director... can exercise the jurisdiction against any order passed by the consolidation authority subordinate to him in view of the provisions contained under Section 44-A.”

He further emphasized that Section 44-A empowers superior consolidation authorities to exercise the powers of subordinates to remedy procedural violations, especially where orders have been passed without notice to interested parties.

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, stating:

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 14.3.2013...”

Direction for Expeditious Disposal of Restored Revisions

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the restored revisions afresh, after impleading Chaina Devi as a party to both, and to conclude the proceedings within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Date of Decision: January 22, 2026