2025 Supreme(All) 4044

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Jaspreet Singh, Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
Kaushal Kishore and others - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation / Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and others - Respondents
WRIT – B No. - 757 of 2024
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Consolidation authorities are statutory tribunals without inherent powers. The power of reference is adjudicatory and must be exercised during the currency of consolidation operations. Upon de-notification, these authorities are divested of jurisdiction, save for matters specifically pending on the notification date as stipulated by the statute.

Headnote:(A) UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 48(3) and 52(1)-(2) - Scope of power of reference - Nature of power - Power of reference under Section 48(3) is an adjudicatory mechanism involving a two-tiered hearing process rather than merely corrective - Statute does not confer inherent powers of review on consolidation authorities -

(B) De-notification of village - Jurisdiction - Upon issuance of notification for closure of consolidation operations, authorities are divested of jurisdiction - Exception exists only for proceedings pending before constitutional courts or consolidation authorities on the date of notification - Power of reference cannot be initiated or exercised post-de-notification. (Paras 136, 137, 183, 184, 185).

Facts of the case:
Conflicting judicial precedents existed regarding whether consolidation authorities retain jurisdiction to exercise powers of reference after the issuance of a notification closing consolidation operations in a unit. The matter was referred to a Full Bench to resolve the scope of the authority's power and its duration post-de-notification.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that consolidation authorities serve a specific statutory purpose and lack inherent powers. Once a village is de-notified, the authorities become functus officio unless explicit savings are provided under the law.

Issues: (i) Whether the power of reference is corrective or adjudicatory; (ii) Whether the power of reference can be exercised after de-notification; (iii) Whether reference proceedings are saved under Section 52(2).

Ratio Decidendi: The power of reference acts as an adjudicatory mechanism, not a consultative or inherent one. Statutory authorities must strictly adhere to the limits of their conferred powers. Once the consolidation closure notification is issued, the legislative intent is clear that the unit reverts to the jurisdiction of the general revenue administration, thereby barring the exercise of powers under the consolidated holdings statute, except for strictly pending proceedings.

Result: The reference was answered holding that consolidation authorities lose jurisdiction post-de-notification; previous contradictory rulings were overruled.

Table of Content
1. reference of conflicting jurisdictional questions to full bench. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
2. petitioners' contention that jurisdiction expires post-de-notification. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
3. state argues for retainment of inherent jurisdiction post-de-notification. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
4. nature and scope of adjudicatory powers under section 48(3). (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138)
5. jurisdiction is lost strictly upon section 52(1) notification. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186)
6. consolidation authorities lack jurisdiction post-de-notification. (Para 187 , 188 , 189)

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

INDEX
S. No.	Details
I	Exordium
II	Questions Referred
III	Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
IV	Submissions on behalf of State and Respondents
V	Birds Eye View of the Act
VI	Conflicting Decisions
VII	Analysis and Discussions of Question No.1
VIII	Analysis and Discussions of Questions No. 2 & 3
IX	Sequitur

I EXORDIUM:-

1. This Full Bench endeavors to answer seminal questions of importance relating to the scope and exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) by the Authorities empowered under the Act and whether such powers can be exercised after de- notification of the village from the consolidation operations in terms of Section 52(1) and (2) of the Act.

2. A large number of petitions involving the aforesaid questions flood this Court and more often than not, keep engaging the attention of this Court. In one such case, in WRIT-B No.757 of 2024 - Kaushal Kishore and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation / Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and others, a learned Single Judge of this Court noticing the divergent opinions on the issue rendered by the different Single Judges and different Division Benches of this Court, found it appropriate to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. 3. The reference order dated 20.12.2024 noticed a string of judgments which propagated the view that the consolidation authorities do not loose their jurisdiction even after de-notification of the village under Section 52(1) and (2) of the Act, rather they retain the powers to correct the records.

4. The judgments approving the aforesaid view are (i) Ram Bahadur v. DDC and others , 1974 RD 53 (DB); (ii) Brij Bir Singh and another v. DDC, Meerut Camp of Muzaffarnagar and others , 1987 RD 66; (iii) Mukhtar v. DDC, Azamgarh and others , 1993 RD 457 (DB); (iv) Ram Pati v. DDC, Banda and others , 1999 RJ 926; (v) Abdul Sami and others v. DDC and others , 2015 (1) ADJ 214 and (vi) Shiv Shankar and another v. State of U.P. and others , 2018 RD (138) 297

5. The other set of decisions, which propagate the view that after de- notification of the village, the consolidation authorities are denuded of their jurisdiction, except in cases where the proceedings are saved in terms of Section 52(2) of the Act, are (i) Ghafoor v. Additional Commissioner , 1979 RD 76 (DB); (ii) Raja Ram and others v. DDC, Lucknow , 1986 RD 387 (DB); (iii) Hari Ram v. DDC, Azamgarh and others , 1989 RD 281 (DB);

Click Here to Read the rest of this document