A civil suit over land classification is barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, if filed by an individual rather than the proper governing body, reinforcing the necessity of procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Shri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Upendra Singh and Shri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner who claims himself to be a Mutwalli of Alal Khair Qabristan Committee, Saray Jargar Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda, has preferred the present writ petition assailing the order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration- II, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in revision against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda, wherein the suit of the petitioner for declaration was rejected.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Mutwalli of Alal Khair Qabristan being the President of the Committee at Gata No. 316 total area 0.41 decimal (current Gata No. 151) situated at Village Saray Jargar Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda was recorded as a Graveyard in the revenue records from 1356 to 1359 Fasli. It is stated that subsequently due to certain error 0.39 decimal came to be recorded as 'Talab' and in the aforesaid circumstances an application for correction under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Code was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in 2010. These facts have been mentioned by the petitioner himself int he plaint filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, wherein it has been stated that in Gata No. 151 total area 0.39 decimal was recorded as 'pond', while 0.02 decimal was recorded as a 'Qabristan' and some land was shown as a public land and consequently an application for correction was made. Though the order has not been annexed but it seems that the petitioner could not succeed in the proceedings instituted under Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act.

4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid suit for a declaratory decree to be issued with regard to the disputed land, which according tot he petitioner should be declared as a 'Qabristan' and necessary directions should be issued for deleting it as a 'Talab' and recording it as a 'Qabristan'. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, by means of order dated 25.02.2010 rejected the suit after recording the fact that during the consolidation proceedings 0.39 decimal of the said land has been recorded as a 'Talab'. While in the suit proceedings the petitioner has categorically stated that this land is not a 'Talab' but a 'Qabristan' is existing at the same and accordingly in the aforesaid proceedings where the consolidation operations have concluded and the land has been recorded as a 'Talab' and the suit proceedings were hit by the provision of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and accordingly the suit would not be maintainable and hence it was dismissed on 25.02.2010.

5. The petitioner had filed a revision against the said order and the revisional authority also upheld the order of the trial court dated 25.02.2010 by means of order dated 23.04.2025 and in the present writ proceedings order dated 23.4.2025 as well as 25.2.2010 have been challenged.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 'Qabristan' is existing at Gata No. 151 area of 0.41 decimal and a portion of said land has wrongly been recorded as a 'Talab' and therefore there was no infirmity in the suit proceedings instituted by him and both the Authorities have failed to ex