Phool Chand And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others

A.F.R.
Reserved On 28.09.2026
Delivered On 13.11.2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - B No. - 769 of 2026
Phool Chand And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And
Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deo Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anand Pal Singh, Pankaj Gupta
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Upendra Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Shri
Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri Anand Pal
Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance
of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.07.2026 passed by
Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, whereby the
restoration application filed by the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners
have further sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order
dated 18.02.2015 passed by Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gonda, in Restoration Application No. 263/178.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that upon coming to
know of the order dated 18.02.2015, the petitioners moved an application for
restoration of the aforesaid order on 06.12.2023, on the ground that, after
denotification of the village under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss if any
alteration were made in their Chak and the restoration application filed by

WRIB No. 769 of 2026
2
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were allowed without issuing any notice to the
petitioners.
It is submitted that upon becoming aware of the pending proceedings, the
petitioners moved an application for restoration seeking to set aside the order
dated 18.02.2015. However, Respondent No. 1, without considering the
claim of the petitioners, rejected the said application vide the impugned
order dated 25.07.2026 observing that the petitioners have an opportunity to
contest the case before the Consolidation Officer, although the denotification
of the village had already taken place on 19.02.2009.
It is submitted that, since the proceedings had already been finalized vide
order dated 29.04.2008, the concerned village had been denotified on
19.02.2009, and the final record of rights had been prepared, Respondent
No. 1 had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the restoration application
filed by the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the absence of any reference
from the subordinate authority. The consolidation authorities are not vested
with any power of review or inherent power to entertain a restoration
application filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the absence of any pending
reference.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and
submitted that the restoration application was filed against the order dated
18.02.2015 passed by Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Gonda, on 11.12.2023, along with an application under Section 5 of the
Indian Limitation Act. It was further submitted that the restoration
application had been filed only to keep the matter pending. Earlier, the
restoration application filed by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 had been allowed
by the court below vide order dated 18.02.2015, and the matter had been
referred to the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, for submission of comments along
with the reference. It was submitted that the restoration application had been
filed by the petitioners after an inordinate delay of several years without any
proper explanation and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 had rightly dismissed
the same on the ground of delay and had rightly refused to condone the delay
under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.
Perused the record.
A perusal of the record shows that Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of

WRIB No. 769 of 2026
3
Consolidation, Gonda, vide order dated 18.02.2015, had allowed two
restoration applications dated 10.01.2014, one filed by Dukhharan and the
other by Meera Devi, and thereafter fixed the matter for final hearing. After
hearing the parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanded the
matter to the Consolidation Officer and summoned the reference along with
the comments/reports. The proceedings were pending before the
Consolidation Officer, and in the meantime, on an application for restoration
filed by Phool Chandra and others, the court below summoned the record.
The restoration application against the order dated 18.02.2015 was filed after
a delay of approximately ten years. The Deputy Director of Consolidation,
after considering the fact that the restoration application had been filed
beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the delay of approximately
ten years had not been properly explained, dismissed the restoration
application on the ground of limitation vide order dated 25.07.2026.
While passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2026, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gonda, recorded the following findings:-
"
पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि दुखहरन सिंह पुत्र सीताराम सिंह द्वारा प्रस्तुत बाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित-
24.10.2011 विरुद्ध आदेश दिनांक-29.04.2008 प्रस्तुत करते हुए वाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार करके आदेश
दिनांक-29.04.2008 निरस्त करने की याचना किया था तथा मीरा देवी पत्नी नागेन्द्र सिंह निवासी ग्राम गंगरौली
द्वारा भी इसी आशय का प्रार्थना पत्र एकपक्षीय आदेश दिनांक-29.04.2008 के विरूद्ध दिनांक-09.10.2012 को
मियाद प्रार्थना पत्र व शपथ पत्र के साथ प्रस्तुत किया था। मेरे पूर्वाधिकारी द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक-
18.02.2015 में वाजदायरकर्तागणों को सुनने के पश्चात दोनों वाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक-10.01.2014 को
स्वीकार कर पत्रावली अन्तिम बहस में नियत की गई थी, जिसके अनुसार दोनों वाजदायरकर्ता द्वारा अपने कब्जे के
अनुसार चंक प्रर्दिष्ट किये जाने की मांग की गयी थी। पूर्व आदेश दिनांक-29.04.2008 जिसे जोत चकबन्दी
अधिनियम की धारा-48 (3) के द्वारा इनके चकों में संशोधन कर उनके कब्ज़े के विपरीत चंक प्रर्दिष्ट कर दिया गया
है। पक्षकारों की मांग के अनुसार चक प्रर्दिष्ट किया जाना उचित प्रतीत होता है, किन्तु उनके चकों में मांग के अनुसार
संशोधन अधीनस्थ चकबन्दी पदाधिकारियों से संदर्भ सहित आख्या प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त ही किया जा सकता है।
इसी विवेचना के साथ पूर्वाधिकारी द्वारा पत्रावेली चकबन्दी अधिकारी नियम-109 को प्रेषित कर पक्षकारों की
सुनकर नियमानुसार सन्दर्भ सहित आख्या की मांग की थी। स्पष्ट है कि चकबन्दी अधिकारी द्वारा पक्षों की सुनवाई
की जा रही थी, इसी बीच वाजदायरकर्तागण फूलचन्द्र आदि के वाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र पर उक्त सन्दर्भ पत्रावली तलब
कर ली गयी। वाजदायरकर्ता द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 18.02.2015 के विरूद्ध लगभग 10 वर्ष विलम्ब से वाजदायर
प्रस्तुत किया गया है। मियाद प्रार्थना पत्र विश्वसनीय नहीं है, इस कारण वाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र अत्यधिक कालबाधित
होने के कारण धारा-5 मियाद का लाभ दिया जाना विधिसम्मत नहीं है। वाजदायरकर्तागण को अपना पक्ष रखने के
लिए चकबन्दी अधिकारी के समक्ष अवसर विद्यमान है। वाजदायरकर्तागण चकबन्दी अधिकारी के समक्ष अपनी
आपत्ति प्रस्तुत कर सकते हैं। इस प्रकार वाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र पोषणीयता एवं मियाद बिन्दु पर निरस्त किये जाने
योग्य है।
आदेश
उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर वाजदायर प्रार्थना पत्र फूलचन्द्र आदि दिनांकित-11.12.2023 पोषणीयता एवं

WRIB No. 769 of 2026
4
मियाद बिन्दु पर निरस्त किया जाता है तथा पूर्व पारित आदेश दिनांक-18.02.2015 यथावत रखा जाता है।
पत्रावली बाद आवश्यक कार्यवाही दाखिल दफ्तर हो।"
A perusal of the reference shows that Phool Chandra and others filed an
objection after the matter was remitted to the Consolidation Officer vide
order dated 18.02.2015. The objection was filed on 21.07.2015, and on
17.11.2021, Phool Chandra and others sought an opportunity. Along with the
restoration application, an undated application under Section 5 of the Indian
Limitation Act was filed by Phool Chandra and others. In the affidavit dated
08.12.2023 filed in support of the undated application under Section 5 of the
Indian Limitation Act, no reason explaining the delay has been given. No
ground whatsoever has been assigned in the said affidavit. In paragraph 7 of
the restoration application filed by the petitioners, only this much has been
stated that prior to 06.12.2023, the petitioners had no knowledge of the order
dated 18.02.2015, which can hardly be termed a sufficient explanation for
the delay.
On the other hand, the contention of the private respondents before the DDC
that Phool Chandra and others had filed an objection before the
Consolidation Officer on 21.07.2015 after the order dated 18.02.2015 had
been passed by the DDC and had also sought an opportunity before the
Consolidation Officer on 17.11.2021, and that a notice had been issued to
Phool Chandra and others on 01.12.2021, has not been rebutted.
Thus, considering the fact that the restoration application dated 11.12.2023
was filed after a delay of approximately eight years without any explanation
for the delay, the DDC has rightly dismissed the restoration application. No
reason whatsoever has been assigned either in the application under Section
5 of the Indian Limitation Act or in the affidavit filed in support thereof.
Even in paragraph 7 of the restoration application, no reason has been given,
except the fact that petitioners had no knowledge of order dated 18.02.2015
prior to 06.12.2023.
The contention of the private respondents, who have specified the dates on
which the petitioners participated in the proceedings before the
Consolidation Officer, has not been rebutted by the petitioners in the writ
petition. The restoration application filed by the petitioners appears to have
been filed after an inordinate delay of approximately eight years, without
any explanation for such delay. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the
court below, while passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2026, has not

WRIB No. 769 of 2026
5
committed any error and has rightly dismissed the restoration application
filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka
has clearly held
Housing Board and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969,
that no litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much
less be allowed by the Courts to misuse the process of law. The length of the
delay is a relevant consideration which the Court must take into account
while deciding whether the delay ought to be condoned. It has further been
held that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration.
The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and
equity, and the Court should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over
the head of the respondent for an indefinite period of time, to be determined
at the whims and fancies of the appellants.
It has also been held that litigants cannot be placed in a situation of perpetual
litigation, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are
frustrated at a later stage. The High Courts ought not to reopen matters after
an inordinate delay unless sufficient cause is shown, as doing so would only
add insult to injury.
In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to furnish any
sufficient cause explaining the inordinate delay of approximately eight years
in filing the restoration application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation
has, therefore, rightly rejected the restoration application on the ground of
limitation. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
dated 25.07.2026 warranting interference in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
November 13, 2026
Vinay/-
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench