NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7085-7086 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14152-14153 of 2009)

Sukhendra Singh and Ors.                  … Appellants

               Vs.

State of U.P. and Ors.                                …  Respondents  

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.   

Leave granted.

2. At the conclusion of the arguments  we indicated that,  

in our opinion, the matter has to go back to the High Court.  Now  

we  give  the  reasons  therefor.   In  order  to  understand  the  

controversy, it is necessary  to state briefly the facts leading  up to  

the filing of these two appeals, by special leave.   

1

3. Ravi  Dutta  Singh  (2nd  appellant)   is  father  of  

Sukhendra Singh ( 1st   appellant).  They initiated  two separate  

proceedings under Section 9A  (2)  of  the U.P. Consolidation of  

Holdings Act,  1953 (for  short,  ‘1953 Act’)  against  Gaon Sabha,  

Lakanpur  (now Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur – 4th respondent)  for  

declaring  them as Bhumidhar  and removing the name of  Gaon  

Sabha in respect  of  diverse plots   details of which have been set  

out in synopsis at pages  B and C.  For brevity,  we shall refer to  

these plots as ‘the disputed land’.  On January 3, 1978, by two  

separate  orders,  the  Consolidation  Officer,   Allahabad  declared  

Ravi Dutta Singh and Sukhendra Singh (Surendra Bahadur Singh)  

Bhumidhar in respect of the disputed land and ordered removal of  

name of Gaon Sabha from the revenue record.  It appears that no  

follow up action was taken pursuant to the orders dated January 3,  

1978  by  the  concerned  authorities,   and  accordingly,   the  1st  

appellant made an application under Section 52 (2) of  the 1953  

Act before the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad for implementation  

of the aforesaid orders.    On December 18, 1995 after seeking the  

report from the  Assistant  Consolidation Officer, the Consolidation  

Officer, Allahabad ordered that the revenue record be corrected by  

2

entering the applicant’s name as Bhumidhar.   Yet again, nothing  

seems to have been done pursuant to the  order dated December  

18, 1995.   The 1st  appellant, 2nd  appellant and  Smt. Etrawass  

Kunwari  (3rd appellant), who is wife of 2nd  appellant,  approached  

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  by filing few  separate  

petitions.    Strangely  one  writ  petition  in  the  name  of  Gram  

Panchayat, Lakhanpur also seems to have been filed  which was  

heard along with  writ  petition   filed by the 1st  appellant.    By  

separate  orders   passed on March 24,  1998  in  each of  these  

petitions,  the  concerned  authorities  were  directed  to  make  

necessary corrections in the revenue record pursuant to the orders  

dated January 3, 1978  

4. Sometime later,  Gram Panchayat,  Lakhanpur  moved  

an  application  before  the  Consolidation  Officer,  Allahabad   for  

recalling  the orders  dated January  3,  1978.   The Consolidation  

Officer took cognizance of that application  and issued notices to  

1st and 2nd  appellant for their  appearance before him  on June 25,  

2001.   The  said  notices  were  challenged  by  the  1st  and  2nd  

appellant  before  the  Allahabad  High  Court  and  the  said  writ  

petition  is said to be pending.   

3

5. Pertinently,  Gram Panchayat,  Lakhanpur filed a writ  

petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No. 54673 of 2002)  before the  

Allahabad High Court for setting aside the  orders earlier passed  

by  the  High  Court  on   March  24,  1998  and  the  orders  dated  

January 3, 1978 passed by  the Consolidation Officer.  In this writ  

petition,  the  present  appellants  were  impleaded  as  respondent  

Nos. 4, 5 and 6.   It was averred in the writ petition that the orders  

dated  March  24,  1998  were  obtained  by  present  appellants  

fraudulently and by misrepresentation and concealment of facts.     

6. The Consolidation Officer again issued notices to the  

1st and 2nd appellant   asking them to appear before him on July 18,  

2007.  They challenged these notices by filing writ petition (Civil  

Misc. Writ Petition  No. 45091 of 2007).  These two writ petitions  

were  heard  together  by  the  Division  Bench.   By  the  first  order  

passed on  February 5, 2009,   the writ petition filed by the Gram  

Panchayat,  Lakhanpur  was  disposed  of.   By  that  order,  the  

Division  Bench  directed  the  Consolidation  Officer,  Allahabad  to  

decide the  dispute afresh in the light of the orders of that Court  

passed on March 24, 1998.  By a separate two-line order of  even  

date,  the other writ petition filed by the 1st and 2nd appellant  was  

4

disposed of in terms of the order passed in  the writ petition filed by  

the Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur.     

7. With respect to the Judges presiding  the Bench, we  

find it difficult to appreciate their  approach in remanding the matter  

without indicating the reasons in support  thereof.  We are quite  

unable to discover any reason as to why the matter has been sent  

back to the Consolidation Officer.  The first order dated February  

5, 2009 reads as follows:   

“Considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the   case, Consolidation Officer is directed to decide this  question afresh in the light of the  judgment of this   Court passed in Writ Petition Nos. 10282 of 1998,   10284 of 1998 and also the judgment of the division  bench of  this  Court  in  Writ  Petition  No.  15771 of   1996, if relevant in the facts and circumstances of the  case.”  

The second order of the even date reads:

“The writ petition is disposed of for order (sic) see   order of the passed on Writ petition No. 54673 of   2002.”

 In the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat,  the plea of fraud,  

misrepresentation  and  concealment  of  facts  has  been  raised  

against the present appellants in obtaining the orders dated March  

24, 1998 from the High Court in various writ petitions as well as the  

orders dated January 3, 1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer.  

5

As a matter of fact,  the grievance  has been raised that no writ  

petition was filed  by the Gram Panchayat earlier  and one  writ  

petition  in  the  name of  Gram Panchayat  has  been  fraudulently  

filed.  Obviously, the grievances raised  by the Gram Panchayat,  

Lakhanpur  in  their  writ  petition  cannot  be  gone  into  by  the  

Consolidation  Officer.     On  the  other  hand,  the  1st  and  2nd  

appellant  in their writ petition before Allahabad High Court have  

raised the grievance with  regard to  continuous disregard of  the  

orders   of the High Court passed on March 24, 1998 as well as  

the legality and justification of the notices  issued to them for their  

appearance before Consolidation Officer on July 18, 2007 and in  

reopening  the  consolidation  proceedings.   In  our  view,  the  

controversy raised by the  1st and 2nd appellant on the one hand  

and  the  Gram  Panchayat  on  the  other  was  required  to  be  

considered judiciously by the High Court and not in the slipshod  

manner  in  which  it  has  been  done.    We  are  constrained  to  

observe that   there is no application of mind at all to the issues  

raised by the parties in the two writ petitions.  

8. In  view  of  the  above,  the  impugned  orders  dated  

February  5,  2009   are  set  aside;   Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  

54673  of 2002  (Gram Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs. State of U.P.  

6

and  Ors.)  and  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  45091  of  2007  

(Sukhendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) are restored  

to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in  

accordance with law.   The appeals stand disposed of accordingly  

with no order as to costs.   

…………………….J.    (Aftab Alam)

New Delhi, ……………………J. August  26, 2010     (R.M. Lodha)  

7