Dudh Nath vs State of U.P. and 32 others

Reserved on 22.10.2026
Delivered on 27.10.2026
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 8081 of 2023
Dudh Nath
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 32 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Jaiswal, Ashish Kumar
Mishra, Randhir Jain, Sandeep
Kumar Keshari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar Gupta, Bhupendra
Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Gaurang
Dwivedi
In Chamber
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Gajendra
Pratap along with Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocates,
respectively assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta and Shri Gaurang
Dwivedi, both representing respondent No.3.

2
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
2. Though a Civil Misc. impleadment application No.4 of 2023 filed
by Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of three persons is on
record and about which observations were made in the order dated
18.08.2026 also, Shri Mishra neither appeared on the previous date nor
today to press the impleadment application. The application is, therefore,
rejected for want of prosecution.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The petitioner, along with two other persons, namely Ram Raj and
Nanhku, instituted a Suit No. 209 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (‘the
Act’) claiming a decree to the effect that the plaintiffs be declared as co-
bhumidhars with the private defendants and their names be recorded as
such in the revenue records. The property in dispute was described as
Arazi Bandobasti No. 302/1 measuring 25 decimals and 302/2
measuring 25 decimals (total number of gatas involved being 2,
measuring 50 decimals).
4. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Division,
Sadar, Varanasi on 21.02.2000 after recording a finding that despite
notices issued to the defendants and served upon them, none had
appeared to contest the proceedings. An appeal No. 55 of 2004 was filed
against the decree by one Bhupendra Kumar (minor) S/o defendant No.1
and through his guardian/mother challenging the judgment and decree
dated 21.02.2000. A restoration application was also filed by some other
defendants of the suit seeking recall of the decree dated 21.02.2000. The
application was rejected as not maintainable on 13.08.2007.
5. The Appeal No. 55 of 2004, however, was allowed on 31.01.2012
by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Division,
Varanasi; the decree dated 21.02.2000 was set aside and matter was
remanded to the trial court to decide the suit on merits in accordance
with law after providing opportunity to both the parties.

3
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
6. The defendant No.1, namely Ram Raj, after remand, filed an
application dated 11.05.2012 seeking withdrawal of the suit. The
application was allowed the same day and the suit was dismissed as
withdrawn, however, the said order was, later on, recalled by the Sub-
Divisional Officer by order dated 16.09.2016 on an application filed by
the petitioner wherein stand was taken that he had not consented for
withdrawal of the suit.
7. After remand by the first appellate court, the suit under Section
229-B was again decreed on 08.01.2019 indicating that the decree drawn
earlier on 21.02.2000 was kept intact. Against the said order, one Suraj
Singh filed a recall application under Order IX Rule 13 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. which was rejected on 06.06.2022. A revision was
filed against the said order by one Vinod Kumar Gupta (respondent
No.3) in 2019, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by
order dated 15.12.2022 whereby the order dated 08.01.2019 was set
aside and the file was consigned to record. It is against the said order
dated 15.12.2022 that the present writ petition has been filed.
8. A detailed interim order was passed by this Court on 07.04.2023
staying the effect and operation of the order dated 15.12.2022 and notice
was issued to the respondent No.3 only, indicating that the other
respondents being co-sharers, may not be aggrieved by the result of the
writ petition. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent No.3 put in
appearance and filed counter affidavit, against which, rejoinder affidavit
has also been filed by the petitioner.
9. The parties were heard at length on 22.10.2026 and judgment was
reserved.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following
submissions:-

4
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
(i). After the appeal was allowed on 31.01.2012, decree was set
aside and the original proceedings under Section 229-B were
restored, the property was sold by defendants to one Suraj Singh on
05.03.2012, who further sold the property in 2016 to respondent
No.3-Vinod Kumar Gupta and the revision filed by the respondent
No.3 being not maintainable as he was not a party to any
proceedings, the order impugned is not sustainable;
(ii). The revision was, otherwise, not maintainable as the same was
preferred against a decree and since Entry 34 of Schedule II of the
Act provides for a remedy of statutory appeal against the decree
before the Commissioner and, thereafter, second appeal before the
Board of Revenue and even the first appeal was not filed in the
present case;
(iii). Withdrawal of suit on 11.05.2012 by one of the plaintiffs,
namely Ram Raj, was a collusive act and once the said order was
subsequently recalled on 16.09.2016, whereafter the suit was
restored and was again decreed on 08.01.2019, neither the recall
application filed by third party, namely Suraj Singh (purchaser) nor
revision filed by respondent No.3, i.e. purchaser from Suraj Singh,
was maintainable, which aspect has been ignored by the revisional
court and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon Raghav Chandra v. State of Uttaranchal : 2007
(102) RD 216, Udayvir and 2 others v. Board of Revenue , U.P. at
Prayagraj : 2022 (7) ILR (All) 61 and Vishnu Vardhan vs State of
U.P and others: 2025 (8) ADJ 181.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 3
11. Per contra, Shri Gajendra Pratap and Shri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 have made following submissions:-

5
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
(i). Availability of remedy of appeal against the decree creates no
bar against revision as per Section 333 of the Act of 1950, which
itself provides that Board or the Commissioner or Additional
Commissioner may call for record of any suit or proceedings in
which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been
preferred. Submission, therefore, is that the revision was
maintainable;
(ii). As regards locus of respondent No.3 to file revision, submission
is that he is purchaser from Suraj Singh in whose favour a registered
sale deed dated 05.03.2012 was executed by 14 vendors and,
therefore, his rights being affected by the decree, he had every locus
to assail the validity of the decree by filing revision;
(iii). The petitioner has no cause of action to claim any relief in
view of the fact that immediately after the appellate Commissioner
had set aside the decree on 31.01.2012, the suit property was sold
by the defendants and/or their heirs to one Suraj Singh in which sale
deed, all the three plaintiffs of the suit including the present
petitioner, were confirming parties, i.e. to say that they put their
thumb impressions and signatures on the sale deed dated
05.03.2012 mentioning that they had no concern whatsoever with
the land forming subject matter of the suit. Submission, therefore, is
that any proceedings undertaken by the petitioner subsequent to
execution of the sale deed dated 05.03.2012 being null and void, the
revisional court has rightly consigned the matter to record;
(iv). The revisional court has otherwise also not committed any
error and has rightly set aside the order/decree dated 08.01.2019 by
observing that since the said decree was earlier set aside on
31.01.2012 by appellate authority in Appeal No. 55 of 2004, the
same could not be restored by Sub-Divisional Officer and the said
act of S.D.O. being without jurisdiction, revision was rightly
allowed;

6
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
(v). The sale deed dated 05.03.2012 was executed when the
declaratory suit, after remand, was pending and no rights of the
present petitioner were decided by that time. The purchaser through
the sale deed (Suraj Singh) and purchaser from the said purchaser
(respondent No.3-Vinod Kumar Gupta) being affected by the
impugned decree dated 08.01.2019, the revision preferred by
respondent No.3 has rightly been allowed and these persons not
being strangers to the proceedings, the arguments on behalf of
petitioner questioning the locus of Suraj Singh and respondent No.
3 have no force. In support of their submissions, reliance has been
placed upon Baboo Ram and another v. The Commissioner Basti
and others: (2020) 148 RD 1.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner did not sell his share in the property and the sale deed
dated 05.03.2012 having been executed inter se other parties to the suit,
the same would have no adverse effect on the rights of the petitioner;
that the sale deed dated 05.03.2012 does not bear the signatures or
thumb impression of the petitioner and, therefore, submissions made by
the respondents that the petitioner ever confirmed the sale deed
execution whereof was based upon fraud on the part of parties to the sale
deed, claim of the petitioner cannot be upset.
13. Further submission is that the revisional Commissioner has not
set aside the decree in light of execution of sale deed dated 05.03.2012,
rather he has erred in misinterpreting the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer whereby the decree which was drawn earlier has
simply been reiterated and, therefore, the revision has been allowed on a
technical aspect without there being any substantial reason to interfere
with the order/decree dated 08.01.2019.
14. Lastly, it is submitted that while consigning the file to records,
revisional court has, in fact, taken away the rights of the petitioner to

7
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
maintain his suit under Section 229-B, which course being not available
to the revisional court and, in any case, if the revisional court was
inclined to set aside the decree, the suit should have been directed to be
decided again and this having not been done, the order impugned cannot
be sustained.
DISCUSSION
15. I have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
Recitals in sale deed and their effect:
16. It is a fact that after the decree dated 21.02.2000 was set aside by
the appellate Commissioner on 31.01.2012 and the suit was revived, the
property was sold on 05.03.2012 in favour of one Suraj Singh. Copy of
the sale deed was not annexed to the writ petition, however, the same has
been annexed along with counter affidavit, a perusal whereof indicates
that 14 persons had executed the sale deed in favour of a single person,
namely Suraj Singh and 16 persons confirmed the sale in the capacity of
third parties. The recitals qua confirmation of sale are contained in
paragraph 6 of the sale deed, relevant part whereof reads as under:-
“6. 302/1 302/2
यह कि पुष्टिकर्तागण का आराजी नम्बर व पर नाम जरिये
269/6/141 1997 -229
मुकदमा नं० सन् धारा बी जेड०ए० एक्ट उपजिलाधिकारी
, 21.02.2000 ,
सदर वाराणसी के आदेश दिनांक द्वारा दर्ज हुआ था जो अपर
( ) 31.01.2012
आयुक्त प्रशासन वाराणसी मण्डल वाराणसी के आदेश दिनांक
,
द्वारा निरस्त हो चुका है अब हम तृतीय पक्षगण का उक्त आराजी से कोई
वास्ता सरोकार नहीं है न ही भविष्य में उसपर मेरे या मेरे वारिसान द्वारा
..
कि सी प्रकार का अधिकार दर्शित कि या जायेगा ……………………… ।”
17. It is not in dispute that petitioner was one of the 16 persons who
confirmed the sale and his name finds mention in the column of ‘third
parties/confirming parties’ in the sale deed and though submission has
been made on his behalf that transaction of sale was a fraudulent
exercise, there being no lis at the instance of the petitioner assailing
validity of the sale deed and/or its contents, the Court is not inclined to

8
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
accept the submission that the sale deed was invalid or that the thumb
impressions or signatures of the petitioner contained therein were forged.
18. Above recital that the third parties/confirming parties would have
no concern with the land bearing Nos. 302/1 and 302/2 forming subject
matter of suit under Section 229-B, which was earlier decreed on
21.02.2000, which order has been set aside on 31.01.2012,
unequivocally reflects declaration made by confirming parties including
the petitioner to the effect that they would have no concern, right, title or
interest in the property in dispute.
19. The above declaration, in the opinion of this Court, constitutes a
proposal or promise within the meaning of Section 2(a), 2(b) and 2 (c) of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said promise, when considered in the
context of Section 2(e) of the Contract Act, constitutes an agreement
within the meaning of the said provision. The declaration expressly
disclaiming or relinquishing rights in respect of the property in dispute,
constituted a communication and intention of the confirming parties to
be bound by the terms so declared, thereby attracting the relevant
principles embodied in Sections 4 and 7 of the Contract Act. The
acceptance of the proposal, as manifested by the execution and
completion of the transaction of sale incorporating the aforesaid recitals,
must be regarded as having attained finality.
20. Further, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the proposal
or the acceptance thereof, as it relates to the declaration and
relinquishment of rights by the confirming parties, was ever revoked in
accordance with law. Consequently, the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of
the Act, which deal with the revocation of proposals and acceptances in
the circumstances contemplated therein, would have no application to
the facts and circumstances of the present case. The declaration made by
the third parties must be understood in the context of the statutory
conception of ‘free consent’ embodied in Sections 13 and 14 of the
Contract Act.

9
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
21. Further no material has been brought on record to establish that
the aforesaid declaration or the transaction of sale in which it was
incorporated, was vitiated by ‘coercion’, ‘undue influence’, ‘fraud’ or
‘misrepresentation’, as contemplated under Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 of
the Act, respectively. In the absence of any such material and in the
absence of any challenge to the validity of the sale deed or the relevant
recitals in appropriate proceedings, this Court finds itself unable to
accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that,
notwithstanding the unequivocal relinquishment or disclaimer of rights
reflected in the instrument, the petitioner retains an independent locus
standi to maintain the challenge to the order impugned.
22. The transaction in question, viewed in its entirety, is not a mere
bilateral arrangement confined to the 14 vendors and the single vendee;
rather, having regard to the participation of 16 confirming parties
(including the petitioner) and the declarations made by them in the sale
deed, it bears the essential character of a ‘tripartite contractual
arrangement’ involving vendors, vendee and the confirming parties, each
of whom is bound by the legal consequences of the terms and
declarations attributable to them. The recitals concerning the
relinquishment or disclaimer of rights constitute an integral part of the
transaction and cannot be rendered nugatory at the instance of a party
seeking to avoid their legal effect without first establishing legally
sustainable grounds for doing so.
23. As far as submissions made by the petitioner that he had not sold
his share in the property and, therefore, the sale deed dated 05.03.2012
would not be read against his claim, the Court is of the view that once
the petitioner relinquished his rights, if any, qua the entire land involved
in the lis, it cannot be accepted that he remained with ‘some rights’ qua
the land, particularly, when the sale deed was executed at a point of time
when the suit itself was, after remand by the appellate court, pending and
the rights of the petitioner, if any, were not even decided by the Court.

10
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
24. Further, the sale deed in question was executed in the year 2012
and the petitioner, despite being aware of its execution and the contents,
elected not to assail its validity before competent civil court in
appropriate proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court cannot
countenance an indirect or collateral challenge to the effect and
operation of the sale deed, sought to be mounted after an inordinate lapse
of time. The failure to pursue the appropriate civil remedy cannot be
circumvented by questioning the consequential order in proceedings
which do not constitute a substitute for a direct challenge to the
underlying instrument.
Maintainability of revision filed by the respondent No. 3 and merits of
the order impugned:
25. As far as maintainability of revision filed by respondent No.3 in
light of the submissions made regarding appellate remedy is concerned,
the Court finds force in the submissions made on behalf of the
respondents that remedy of appeal, though being available but having
not been availed, revision under Section 333 would lie in a case where a
Court subordinate to the revisional authority appears to have exercised a
jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise the jurisdiction so
vested or acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity. This is what is clearly written by the legislature in section
333.
26. It further appears that the issue of maintainability of revision on
the plea of availability of appellate remedy was not even raised by the
petitioner before the revisional court and the parties proceeded to press
and contest the proceedings treating the revision as maintainable, which
otherwise also, is found by this Court to be maintainable. For this reason
also, the Court is not inclined to accept the submission on behalf of the
petitioner that the order impugned is liable to the set aside treating the
revision as not maintainable.

11
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
27. It is reflected from the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the
revisional court, that the revision has been allowed on the ground that
Sub-Divisional Officer did not have jurisdiction to maintain a decree
which was earlier set aside by the first appellate court. It is apparent that
the suit was earlier decreed ex-parte on 21.02.2000 and when the same
was re-considered after remand by the appellate court, it was again
decreed ex-parte on 08.01.2019, the operative portion however indicates
that the decree dated 21.02.2000 was restored.
28. This Court is of the view that after remand, the Sub-Divisional
Officer could have again decreed the suit by using a different language,
such as ‘the suit is hereby decreed’; however, if he simply maintained
the previous decree, the issue is only qua the language used in the
operative portion of the order and, therefore, though it could not be a
sufficient ground to set aside the order dated 08.01.2019, nevertheless,
this mere fact would not improve the case of the petitioner whose locus
in view of recitals contained in the sale deed as a confirming party, has
been thoroughly examined by this Court so as to arrive at a conclusion
that the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition, irrespective
of the ground on which the revision has been allowed.
29. As far as submission that revisional court’s order is not based
upon the execution of sale deed, the Court finds that the purchaser Suraj
Singh had sought recall of the decree based upon the compromise
entered into between the parties and execution of sale deed dated
05.03.2012 and though the recall application was rejected, in the revision
preferred by respondent no.3-Vinod Kumar Gupta also detailed pleas
and grounds were raised based upon sale deed dated 05.03.2012 and its
effect. The revisional court, in paragraph No.3 of its order, has also taken
note of the submissions based upon the sale deed and though the
order/decree dated 08.01.2019 has been set aside on a different ground,
once the entire facts have come before this Court and situation has been
examined in its entirety, the Court is not inclined to exercise
discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who did not even

12
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
disclose about execution of the sale deed in the writ petition not did he
annex any copy thereof.
Discussion of cited decisions:
30. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baboo Ram (supra),
after placing reliance on Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan : (2000) 7 SCC 29, has reiterated the settled position of law that
the High Court would be right in refusing to invoke its extraordinary
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
quash the order which would result in restoration of an illegal order and
refusal to exercise such jurisdiction in circumstances of a particular case
would be justified.
31. The judgment in the case of Udayvir (Supra), as relied upon on
behalf of the petitioner qua the revisional power in light of remedy of
appeal, is clearly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, in that case, an
appeal was already filed under Section 331 of the Act against a decree
passed under Section 229-B and, thereafter, revision was filed under
Section 333 and, in that background, co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
after emphasizing upon word ‘shall’ observed that it was mandatory for
the concerned petitioners to have filed a second appeal, which was
creation of Statute and the same having not been done, the matter was
decided accordingly. Admittedly, in the present case, no appeal was
preferred against the decree and, therefore, the provision as it reads,
revision before the Commissioner was certainly maintainable.
32. The judgment in the case of Raghav Chandra (supra) wherein
scope of Section 333 has been dealt with, also does not come to the
benefit of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in that judgment, interference
under Section 333 was sought to be confined to the extent of
jurisdictional error alone, about which proposition, there is no quarrel,
particularly, in view of the language used in Section 333 itself; however,
when this Court has examined the facts in their entirety and has found
that before the revisional court, pleas based upon the sale deed and its

13
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
effect were raised and the same have been re-examined by this Court, the
mere fact that revisional court interfered with the exercise of jurisdiction
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, would not benefit the petitioner and in
view judgment in the case of Aligarh Muslim University (supra), this
Court is not inclined to revive the suit proceedings on any ground
whatsoever as it would amount to revival of an illegality which is not
permissible.
33. The judgment in the case of Vishnu Vardhan (supra) is altogether
in a different context where, arising out of land acquisition proceedings
and award of compensation, the matter reached to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and while remanding the matter to this Court for re-consideration,
observations were made in that context only, which have no application
in the facts of the present case.
Remand- unnecessary:
34. As far as the last submission made on behalf of the petitioner
regarding remand of suit proceedings to the first court, this Court is not
inclined to accept the same for the reason that that revival of the
proceedings shall be an empty formality and, even otherwise, the matter
being quite old, in the sense that suit was filed in 1996, the Court is not
inclined to give rise to further rounds of litigation. The legal maxim
interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium applies in full force in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, which means that it is in the interest
of the State that there must be an end to litigation.
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh and
others : (2025) 12 SCR 584, after referring to decisions in the case of
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others : (1996) 6 SCC 237; State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others : (2021) 19 SCC 706
and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 SCC Online
SC 493, has held that higher Courts should avoid unnecessary remand
which may generate fresh round of litigation. The view has been recently

14
WRIC No. - 8081 of 2023
reiterated in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh and
others : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 195.
Conclusion:
36. In view of the above discussion, the Court does not find any good
ground to interfere with the order dated 15.12.2022 or to grant any other
relief claimed by the petitioner.
37. The petition has no substance; the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Interim order dated 07.04.2023 stands discharged.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J)
October 27, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad