Nagar Panchayat Akbarpur vs Member Board of Revenue, U.P. and others

J.J. Munir, J

When litigation ends with judgment, and that judgment attains finality due to its approval by the last Court or a non-challenge, the losing party must know that there cannot be a new beginning. This is the underlying principle of finality in the procedural laws, that gives effect to one of the most cardinal of the public policies that there cannot be a cause suited between parties ad infinitum. Once decided and finality attaches, the rights of parties cannot be permitted to remain in a state of perpetual uncertainty, with one side or the other springing up a fresh challenge in someway, direct or insidious. This is after all the public policy underlying the doctrine of res judicata. Unfortunately, a State Body, called the Nagar Panchayat, Akbarpur, seems to be blissfully ignorant of this elementary principle and this is what has led them and some of their predecessors to this wasteful litigation.

The dispute in this writ petition relates to Plot No.597/ 3-12-0 and Plot No.978/ 3-10-0, admeasuring a total of 7-2-0, both part of Khata No.560, situate in Village Adhu Kamalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat. The said land shall hereinafter be called, 'the land in dispute'. The petitioner, Nagar Panchayat are the successors-in-interest of Gaon Sabha/ Village Akbarpur, who had earlier raised cudgels against the third and fourth respondents, which includes their successors and assigns relating to the land in dispute.

The short case of the petitioner appears to be that the land in dispute was originally recorded as usar and, therefore, vested in the Gaon Sabha. The husbands of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who were employees of the Revenue Department, had access to the revenue records. They had knowledge of the fact that the second copy of the Chakbandi Jild Bandobast, which is kept in the District Record Room, Kanpur, was destroyed by fire. Taking advantage of the aforesaid contingency, the husbands of respondent Nos.3 and 4 did some overwriting and altered the khata of the land in dispute from '560' to '454-Aa' in the first copy of the Jild Bandobast. The land in dispute, according to the petitioner, belonged to the Gaon Sabha and now the petitioner, by operation of law upon establishment of the Nagar Panchayat, have stepped into the shoes of the Gaon Sabha.

It is the petitioner's case that knowing of the aforesaid forgery in the revenue record, an application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, to safeguard the interest of the State, was made by the proforma respondent, which was registered as Case No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat. The Tehsildar, Akbarpur was directed to inquire into the matter, who submitted an inquiry report dated 18.04.2013 and found the proforma respondent's stand vindicated. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that there was manipulation in the final consolidation maps etc. and ordered the land in dispute to be restored to the Gaon Sabha khata, after expunging the name of respondent Nos.3 and 4, their transferees, respondent Nos.5 and 6, besides issuing directions to register a First Information Report against all these persons, vide order dated 01.07.2013.

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2013, respondent No.6 preferred a revision to the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The Additional Commissioner, before whom the revision came up, finding it to be a case of a second round of litigation or multiple rounds of it, vide order dated 23.07.2013, held the application to expunge the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 not maintainable. He allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and restored the rights of the third and the fourth respondents to record, including those of their transferees, like the sixth respondent etc.

Aggrieved by the Additional Commissioner's order dated 23. 07.2013, the petitioner persuaded the State Government, on whose behalf the Gaon Sabha and its successor, the Nagar Panchayat, held the land in dispute, to present a revision in their own right to the Board of Revenue. In consequence, Revision No.1911/2016-Kanpur Dehat was instituted by the State Government before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow. The said revision noticed the course of proceedings and finding it to be a case of a concluded lis, hit by finality against the petitioner, dismissed the State Government's revision, upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner. The said order was passed by the Board on 31.01.2018.

Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been preferred by the Nagar Panchayat, Akbarpur.

Parties having exchanged affidavits, this petition was admitted to hearing on 29.05.2025, which proceeded forthwith. It was heard further on 18.07.2025, when judgment was reserved.

Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajan Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, Mr. Amit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2, 4/3 and 4/4, Mr. Vidhigya Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Despite the very persuasive and elaborate submissions advanced on both sides, which did tempt this Court at times into scrutinizing the records if at all the rights of parties recorded for the land in dispute were forged and fictitious, as the petitioner alleges. We are of opinion that it is forbidden territory now to tread. It is not disputed that during consolidation proceedings, respondent Nos.3 and 4, to wit, Smt. Somwati and Smt. Munni Devi, moved an application before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Consolidation Act'), claiming right and title to Plot No.1307 (new Plot No.978) and Plot No.1393 (new Plot No.597). The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections vide order dated 7. 02.1974.

Aggrieved, respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was numbered as Appeal No. 915, under Section 11 of the Consolidation Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 11.12.1974. Both these orders were impugned by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide Revision No.1016, under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide judgment and order dated 23.10.1975.

In effect, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by his judgment and order dated 23.10.1975, allowed the third and the fourth respondents' objections under Section 9-A(2), setting aside the orders of the two Authorities below. In their rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners do not say that these proceedings were not taken, but seek to avoid the effect of the orders of the Consolidation Officer by saying that these cases were filed between respondent Nos.3 and 4 and not contested 'by anyone due to want to knowledge'. If by anyone, the petitioners mean the Gaon Sabha or the State, we do not think that that would be acceptable at all.

The revision, which was decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur vide order 23.10.1975, prominently had in the array of parties the Gaon Sabha as the first respondent. It is difficult, therefore, to accept that proceedings before the three Consolidation Authorities, ending in the judgment dated 23. 10.1975, which were title proceedings, were decided without information, notice to or knowledge of the Gaon Sabha. Apparently, no restoration application was ever filed before the Consolidation Officers or a writ petition before this Court, questioning the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.10.1975 on ground that the Gaon Sabha was not heard, amongst others. Rather, it is common ground between parties that the order dated 23.10.1975 was permitted to become final without any challenge to it of any kind ever being raised. It is absolutely impossible in these circumstances to say that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.10.1975, passed in title proceedings, would not bind the Gaon Sabha or its successor, the petitioner-Nagar Panchayat.

The fifth respondent here, one of the transferees from respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Committee of Management, Akbarpur Degree College, filed Suit No.39/85/89, under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Gaon Sabha and the State, including respondent Nos.3 and 4. The said suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise vide order dated 11.01.1990. A decree was passed, in terms of which Plot No.978, belonging to respondent No.3, Smt. Munni Devi, was given to the petitioner's predecessor-in-title, the Gaon Sabha Adhu Kamalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, through its Pradhan, whereas Plot No.979, which was recorded in the petitioner's predecessor's khata, was given to Smt. Munni Devi. This assertion, together with relevant record, is there in paragraph No.3-G of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, there is a bald denial, saying that paragraph Nos.3-F and 3-G are denied. The denial is evasive and there is no reason to disbelieve the fifth respondent's well pleaded case on this score, backed as it is, by necessary evidence, annexed as Annexure Nos. CA-2 to CA-4.

The record then shows that one Balwan moved an application dated 25.06.1998 under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, seeking to expunge the name of Somwati and Munni Devi, respondent Nos.3 and 4, respectively, from the land in dispute, with a direction to record these in the State's khata. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akbarpur vide order dated 22.02.1999, directing the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be expunged and the land in dispute entered in the Gaon Sabha khata as usar.

Aggrieved by this order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred a revision to the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, being Revision No.54 of 1999. This revision came up before the Additional Commissioner, who vide his judgment and order dated 30.06.1999, allowed the revision and set aside the SDO's order dated 22.02.1999. A recall application was filed by the State and the Gaon Sabha against this order to the Additional Commissioner, which was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2011.

These two orders dated 30.06.1999 and 27.06.2011 have been specifically asserted by respondent No.5 in paragraph No.3-K of their counter affidavit to have become final on account of non-challenge. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, all that is said is that the orders dated 30.06.1999 and 27.06.2011 were part of technicalities. The conclusion, therefore, is that the finality of orders dated 30.06.1999 and 27.06.2011 is admitted to the petitioner. After the mutation matter attained finality, the present application, reopening the entire dispute, was apparently made in the name of one Ram Naresh Singh, arrayed as respondent No.7. The fifth respondent calls him an imposter and a non-existent person. We do not wish to go into that question, because Ram Naresh Singh has indeed filed a counter affidavit before this Court.

What is material is that even if Ram Naresh Singh is a real person, who has made the present application dated 11.06.2012 under Section 33/39 to expunge the name of respondent Nos.3 and 4, it would make little difference. The application made by Ram Naresh Singh was registered on 11.06.2012, that is to say, the date it was presented. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are one and the same substantially, filed Revision No.103 of 2013 before the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, challenging the very registration of a second application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, the earlier application having been rejected. Thus, respondent Nos.5 and 6 challenged the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, entertaining and registering the application under Section 33/39, last mentioned. The Commissioner heard this revision and allowed it vide order dated 07.03.2013, setting aside the order dated 11.06.2012, registering the application, albeit with a remand to the SDO to pass a fresh order, bearing in mind the remarks in the Additional Commissioner's judgment. Those remarks were to the following effect:

"अतः प्रत पकरण मे वविदन अधधववक्द िदरद पसततत वकिे रिे ववधधक दृष्तष के अनतसदर पतनः ध-दरद33/39 की कदिरवदही पचललत नही की जद सकत।ी इसके अधतिरवक् वददग्रसत भूवम के सम््ध मे जमीददरी ववनदश अधधवनिम की धदरद-229 ्ी के अ्तररत मी वदनदांक11-01-1990 कष वनणरि पदिरतवकिद जद चतकद है एवां वदनदांक27-06-2011 कष इस ्िदिदलि िदरद ्दजवे नम्र कद पदररनद पत भी वनरसत कर वदिद रिद है तरद वितीि अपील सांखिद- 35 / 2002 मे मद0 उच्च ्िदिदलि िदरद अननन्तम वनणरि ललिद जद चतकद है, ऐसी दशद मेअवर ्िदिदलि िदरद पदिरत आदेश वदनदांक11-06-2012 वनरसत वकिे जदने िष्यि "है।

(emphasis by Court)

Notwithstanding the remarks of the Revisional Court, the holding that the application would not maintainable, taking advantage of the order of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner and ignoring the remarks in the body of the judgment and order dated 07.03.2013 passed in Revision No.103 of 2013, the SDO once again passed the order dated 01.07.2013, expunging the name of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and directing the Gaon Sabha's name to be recorded. It is this order, which has been set aside in revision by the Additional Commissioner vide order 23.07.2013 and affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 31.01.2018.

Upon a wholesome consideration of the matter, we are of opinion that though at different stages of proceedings, different parties have come forward to question the rights of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be recorded in the land in dispute, the rights of these respondents have been sufficiently tested in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Consolidation Act, a declaratory suit and earlier proceedings for correction under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, with the event being in favour of these respondents consistently. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their transferees, for the said reason, cannot be exposed to an incessant peril of challenge to their rights by third parties, and may be even the State, agitating the same issues all over again. The State and the Gaon Sabha were parties to the proceedings under the Consolidation Act as also the suit under Section 229-B. In fact, the Gaon Sabha entered into a compromise with respondent Nos.3 and 4 for exchange of one of the plots, comprising the suit land. The petitioners are after all successors of the Gaon Sabha and are bound by their acts, rights and liabilities. At no point of time, the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.10.1975 or the decree passed in the declaratory suit, were questioned either by the Gaon Sabha or the State, or even a third party. They have been agitating the issue in proceedings for correction of record under Section 33/39 and one set of challenge has finally failed. In these circumstances, to permit re-agitation of the same issue over and over again, may not be a violation of the principle of res judicata stricto sensu, but it certainly violates the spirit of the principle. And, that is that all litigation must come to end and there must be a quietus given to strife that a cause of action produces.

In the totality of circumstances, we are of opinion that no case for interference in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution with the orders impugned passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is made out.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.