Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ghufran Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Pradeep Kumar, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.9.2025, thereby allowing the revision preferred by the private respondents, setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.9.2018 as well as order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.4.2023 and directing the parties to maintain status-quo ante and also for recording the name of co-tenants in the revenue records.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in the present case pertains to Khata no.25 situated in Village Sohilpur, Pargana Satrikh, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki (old No.24), which according to the petitioners initially was recorded in the name of Mangre.

4. It has been submitted that Mangre had two sons, namely, Gayadeen and Parmeshwar and all the petitioners are descendants of Mangre. On the other hand, the opposite parties are the sons of Sitaram, who is the grandson of Anganu and according to the opposite parties the land belonged to Anganu, who had four sons, namely, Mangre, Mataee, Garibe and Sahai and accordingly claimed co-tenancy in the disputed land along with the petitioners.

5. It has been submitted that a suit under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by the private respondents before the Additional Officer, First/Assistant Collector, Barabanki who had dismissed the suit proceedings on the ground of maintainability. He was of the view that the suit proceedings were barred by Section 49 of of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was decided by issued No.4, which was framed by him. The suit was accordingly dismissed on the aforesaid ground by means of the order dated 4.4.1978 and subsequently the private respondents preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Faizabad where also the order dated 4.4.1978 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 21.2.1979. The appellate authority also noticed that the suit was defective for non compliance of Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and despite opportunity given to the private respondent to make necessary amendments, no action was taken by them. Apart from the aforesaid fact the suit was barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holding Act and he was of the view that it is only on the ground of maintainability that the appellate authority was of the view that the suit proceedings had rightly been rejected.

6. Subsequently, the private respondents moved an application under Section 34/35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Naib Tehsildar, who by means of the order dated 13.2.1987 allowed their application and their names were also added in the revenue record along with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.

7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 13.2.1987 was passed on the basis of compromise but in fact was never entered by the petitioner and they were not aware of the proceedings before Naib Tehsildar and accordingly had moved an application for recall. It has been submitted that it is during the pendency of the recall application that the notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed and accordingly the proceeding stood abated.

8. It is onset of a fresh consolidation proceedings that the objections were filed by both the parties under Section 9A(2) before the Consolidation Office