Satya Narayan vs D.D.C. And Others

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 11303 of 1982
Satya
Narayan
…..Petitioners(s)
Versus
D.D.C. And
Others
…..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Awadh Behari Singh, Kedar Nath
Mishra, Mahesh Singh, Ratnatkar
Chaudhary, Siddharth Singh, T.P.
Singh
Amrendra Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
H.S.N.Tripathi, Kedar Nath Mishra,
Neeraj Singh, Neeraj Tripathi,
P.S.Tripathi, S.A.Gilani, S.C., Viveknand
Yadav
With
WRIT - B No. - 14250 of 1982
Markandey
…..Petitioners(s)
Versus
D.D.C. And
Others
…..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Amrendra Singh, Kedar Nath
Mishra, R.S. Mishra, S.A.Gilani,
Vivekanand Yadav
H.S.N. Tripathi, Neeraj Singh, P.S.
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Tripathi, S.C.
With

2
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
WRIT - B No. - 1817 of 2024
Anand Dev
Giri And
Another
…..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
and 7 Others
…..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Awadh Behari Singh
C.S.C., Kedar Nath Mishra, Satyendra
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Kumar Singh
Reserved On:22.4.2026
Delivered On:8.7.2026  
Court No. – 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C.
Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kedar Nath Mishra,
learned counsel for the private respondent and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ- B No.11303 of
1982. 
2. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kedar
Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Tarun Gaur,
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ- B No.14250
of 1982.

3
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
3. Heard Mr. A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C.
Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kedar Nath Mishra,
learned counsel for the private respondent nos.4 to 8 and Mr. Tarun
Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ- B
No.1817 of 2024.
4. Common questions of law and facts are involved in all the three writ
petitions, as such, all the three writ petitions are clubbed and heard
together. 
5. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of khata nos.75
and 133 situated in village- Bahorpur, district- Deoria. Khata no.75 was
bhumidhari khata and khata no.133 was sirdari khata. In the basic year
of consolidation operation, the aforementioned khata in dispute were
recorded in the name of petitioner- Satya Narain Giri along with the
name of Surya Bhan Giri. Against the basic year entry of the khata in
dispute, two sets of objections were filed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as
"U.P.C.H. Act"). First set of objection was filed by respondent no.3-
Markandey alleging that khata in dispute was the self acquired property
in nature of Sir / Khud-kasht / grove, which was acquired by Dalmardan
Giri and the name of Sehdev Giri as well as Mahadev Giri was inherited
by Kunj Behari, as such, respondent no.3 is a co-parcener and a member
of undivided Hindu family, accordingly, entitled to be recorded as co-
tenure holder along with recorded tenure holder, namely, Satya Narain
Giri and Surya Bhan Giri having share in the khata in dispute as 13/60.

4
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
Another set of objection was filed by respondent no.4-Udai Bhan as well
as respondent no.5- Raj Bhan both are sons of Markandey alleging that
khata in dispute was self acquired property of Dalmardan Giri,
accordingly, respondent nos.4 & 5 are entitled to be recorded over khata
in dispute having share 7/30. Claim of respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 was
contested by the recorded tenure holder, namely, Satya Narain Giri and
Surya Bhan Giri stating that respondent no.3 had become chela of
Raghubir Jati who was head of the Chirraiyya Math, district- Deoria and
he was no longer Giri, as such, legal status of respondent no.3 with the
petitioner's family has come to an end. It was also contended by the
petitioners before the Consolidation Officer that respondent no.3-
Markandey was not Giri and so his sons who are respondent nos.4 & 5 to
the instant petition were also not Giri and they are not successor or legal
heirs of Raghunandan Giri. It was also contended by the petitioner
before the Consolidation Officer that after death of Saha Dev Giri, the
interest in the property did not devolve alone on Kunj Behari rather the
same devolved on Kunj Behari, Raghunandan (petitioner's father) and
Ram Lagan Giri. It was also contended on behalf of petitioners that after
death of Kunj Behari, there was some dispute regarding the devolution
of his share which has resulted in a mutation case between Raghunandan
Giri and Ram Lagan Giri, accordingly, the said dispute was devolved
under a family settlement under which 1/2 of the total share of Kunj
Behari was given to Surya Bhan Giri and 1/2 share was given to
Raghunandan Giri (father of petitioner). It has also been contended on
behalf of petitioner that petitioners are in exclusive possession over the

5
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
land in dispute and recorded over the disputed khata, as such, right of
respondent no.3, if any, had ceased by adverse possession and ouster.
Before the Consolidation Officer, the parties have adduced evidence in
support of their cases. On behalf of petitioners a registered gift-deed
dated 4.8.1941 executed by Raghunandan Giri in favour of petitioner
no.1 was produced in which it has been mentioned that Markandey had
become chela of Mahant Raghubir of Chirraiyya Math and since then he
had no connection with the family of Raghunandan Giri. Consolidation
Officer vide judgement dated 12.11.1974 decided the aforementioned
title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and granted co-
tennacy right in favour of respondent no.3 and decided the share of the
parties. Objection of respondent nos.4 & 5 were rejected. Against the
order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.11.1974, appeal under Section
11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioners before Settlement Officer
of Consolidation. Respondent no.3 also filed an appeal under Section 11
(1) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as respondent nos.4 & 5 have also filed
appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer of
Consolidation. All the aforementioned three appeals were clubbed and
heard together by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Settlement
Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 20.10.1975 allowed the appeal
filed by petitioner setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer and
dismissed the appeal filed by respondent nos.3 to 5 as well as divided the
share of Suryabhan Giri and Satya Narain Giri as 1/2 & 1/2 each in khata
nos.75 & 133. Against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation
dated 20.10.1975, three revisions, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act were

6
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation vide order dated 16.9.1982 decided the revisions declaring
the respondent no.3 as co-tenure holder of khata in dispute of 1/4 share.
Hence, Writ-B No.11303 of 1982 has been filed on behalf of petitioner-
Satya Narain Giri for the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary quashing the mudgments
and orders dated 16.9.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
(Opposite Party no. 1) and the order dated 12.11. 1974 passed by the Consolidation
Officer-II (Opposite Party no.2) and contained in annexures 3 and 5 respectively.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties not to give effect to the aforesaid judgments."
Writ-B No.14250 of 1982 has been filed on behalf of petitioner-
Markandey for the following reliefs:
"a) issue writ direction and orders in the natureof certiorari calling for the record of
the case and quash the order of the respondent no.2 dated 20-10-1975 in its entirety
and the orders of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 dated 12-11-1974 and 16-9-1982
respectively to the extent they are against the petitioners."
Writ-B No.1817 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of petitioners- Anand
Dev Giri And Another for the following reliefs:
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to not
to interfere in the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute which has became final
between the parties.
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to
pass any appropriate order on the claim made by the petitioners with regard to interference of the

7
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
Respondents in possession over the land in dispute in absence of any order passed in their favour
within a fix period of time."
6. Parties have exchanged their pleadings in Writ- B Nos.11303 of 1982
& 14250 of 1982. 
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ- B Nos.11303 of 1982 &
1817 of 2024 submitted that respondent no.3/ Markandey became chela
of Mahant Raghubir of Chirraiyya Math, as such, he cannot be granted
co-tenancy right in the family of Raghunandan Giri as respondent no.3/
Markandey will get succession as chela of Mahant Raghubir of
Chirraiyya Math. He further submitted that in Suit No.10 of 1910, a
decree has been passed that Raghubir Jati had ceased to be member of
Giri family after he became Mahant Raghubir of Chirraiyya Math and
the same principle was applicable in the case of respondent no.3. He
further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly
refused the co-tenancy right to respondent no.3 by allowing the appeal
filed by petitioner under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further
submitted that the Consolidation Officer as well as Deputy Director of
Consolidation has failed to take into consideration the family settlement
as well as gift-deed executed by Raghunandan Giri in the year 1941,
which was acted upon in accordance with law. He further submitted that
the evidence on record has been misread by the Consolidation Officer as
well as Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, the order passed by
the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot
be sustained in the eye of law. He placed the judgement & decree passed
in Suit No.10 of 1910 which is annexed as Annexure No.2 in Writ- B

8
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
No.1817 of 2024 in order to demonstrate that there is no illegality in
exercise of jurisdiction by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation
refusing co-tenancy right to respondent no.3. He placed reliance upon
the following judgements in support of his argument:
"i. 2024 Law Suit (Del) 1349, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust India vs.
WWW Friendwithbooks Co.
ii. 1931 LawSuit (All) 5, Chaube Madho Rao vs. Chaube Gur Narain. 
iii. (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 689, Shri Krishna Singh vs. Mathura
Ahir and others."
8. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent in
Writ- B Nos.11303 of 1982 & 1817 of 2024 as well as learned counsel
for the petitioner in Writ -B No.14250 of 1982 submitted that the decree
alleged to be passed in Civil Suit 10 of 1910 was fraudulent, as such, no
reliance can be placed upon the same. He further submitted that the title
objections were rightly filed by private respondent claiming co-tenancy
right being member of the family. He further submitted that the
Consolidation Officer has rightly granted co-tenancy right to respondent
no.3/ Markandey but Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally
allowed the appeal filed by petitioner setting aside the order of
Consolidation Officer and refusing the claim of co-tenancy to respondent
no.3. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has
allowed the claim of co-tenancy but share was not rightly determined,

9
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
accordingly, Writ- B No.14250 of 1982 has been filed on behalf of
Markandey, Uday Bhan and Raj Bhan for granting relief to respondent
nos.3, 4 & 5 in accordance with law. He further submitted that there is
no provision in Hindu Shastra that once person renounced the world,
cannot come back and lead domestic life. He further submitted that the
share of the petitioners of Writ- B No.14250 of 1982 has not been rightly
determined, as such, the matter should be sent back before Deputy
Director of Consolidation to decide the share of the parties in proper
manner. He further submitted that the averment made in Writ- B
No.14250 of 1982 has not been denied by filing proper counter affidavit,
as such, Writ- B No.14250 of 1982 should be allowed treating the
averment made in the writ petition as admitted. He further submitted that
the Writ-B No.1817 of 2024 filed for mandamus cannot be entertained
and liable to be dismissed.
9. Mr. Neeraj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
nos.6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 in Writ- B No.11303 of 1982 and on behalf of
respondent nos.5, 9, 10, 11 & 12 in Writ- B No.14250 of 182 submitted
that Writ- B No.11303 of 1982 should be dismissed. He further
submitted that there is no illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the
consolidation authorities declaring 1/2 share of Surya Bhan Giri in
disputed khata nos.75 & 133. 
10.  I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

10
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
11. There is no dispute about the fact that the dispute under Section 9-A
(2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed against the basic year entry was decided by the
Consolidation Officer granting co-tenancy of respondent no.3 but in
appeal the order of Consolidation Officer was set aside and claim of co-
tenancy setup by respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 was refused. There is also no
dispute about the fact that the revision filed by respondent nos.3, 4 & 5
was allowed maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer granting co-
tenancy in favour of respondent no.3.
12. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, family
pedigree as mentioned in the order of Consolidation Officer will be
necessary which is as under:

11
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
13. Perusal of the issues framed before the Consolidation Officer will be
also necessary, which are as under:
"1- ?
क्या आपत्तिकर्तागण तथा प्रतिवादीगण मुष्तर्का हिन्दू खानदान के सदस्य थे यदि थे तो उसका प्रभाव
2- ?
क्या मारकन्डे को सहभूमिधर थे और उनका कब्जा चला आ रहा है
3- ?
क्या उदयभान राजभान गिरि अपने पिता के साथ सह भूमिधर हुए और उनका कब्जा दखल चला आ रहा है
4- ?
क्या मारकन्डे गिरि है अथवा नहीं
5- ?
क्या मारकन्डे गिरि दवाभर्दन के खानदान से अपना सम्बंध बैरिया चिरड्या के यहां हो जाने के बाद समाप्त कर लिया
6- ?
क्या कारकने के लडके उदयभान पति है गिरि
7- ,
क्या कुंजबिहारी रघुनन्दन रामलगन सहदेव महादेव गिरि के हिस्से के वारिस थे अथवा कुंजबिहारी गिरि सहदेव महादेव के
तनहा वारिस थे
8- ?
क्या रामवचन रमेष गनेष कमला आदि ज्योति कुंज अन्य खातेदारान के साथ विवादित भूमि के सह खातेदार है
9- ?
क्या मारकन्डे गिरि का स्वस्थ है
10- ?
क्या कुंजबिहारी रघुनन्दन और रामलगत गिरि के बीच में खानदानी इन्तजाम के अनुसार काबिज दखील है
11- ?
क्या रघुनन्दन ने अपना हिस्सा सत्यनारायन गिरि के हक में कर दिया यदि हो तो उसका क्या प्रभाव है
12- ?
क्या मारक के उदयभान गिरि राजमान गिरि के स्वत्व के पिता है
13- ?
क्या सूर्यभान रघुनन्दन कुंजबिहारी के हिस्से के बराबर वारिस रहे है
14- ?
क्या पक्षों के खानदान मे चेला की हैसियत से वारिसान होने की प्रथा है

12
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
15- ?
क्या मारकन्डे का स्वत्व बैरिया किरइया मठ के महंत हो जाने के कारण समाप्त हो गया है
16- 1/2 ?
क्या सूर्यभान सत्यनारायन गिरि का हिस्सा बराबर बराबर है क्या वह तनहा खातेदार है
17- ?
क्या मारकन्डे उदयभान रामजान का स्वतत्व मियाद के बाहर है
18- 180 210 ,
क्या सूर्यभान सत्यनारायन व स्वतव धारा यू० पी० ज० एक्ट और धारा जेड एक्ट के अन्तर्गत पूर्ण हो चुका है
359, 360 359 ?"
वाद संख्या कन्सालिडेड किया गया वाद संख्या मुख्य वाद रहेगा
14. Perusal of the judgement and decree passed in the suit no.10 of 1910
will be also necessary, which are as under:
" In the Court of Addl. Sub-Judge of Gorakhpur Present: B. Harbendhan Lal Saheb, Addl. Sub
Judge
Suit No. 10 of 1910
Goshain Raghunandan Giri. --------------------- Plaintiff.
Versus
Mahanth Raghubir Jati. ----------------- -- Defendant.
The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of and in possession of the property in
dispute and that the defendant has nothing to do with it.
The parties to the suit are brothers. They lived jointly and were in possession of the property in
dispute as members of the joint Hindu family. Three year ago when defendant left to his home,
gave up his connection with his family, left the Grihast Ashram and became a Sanyasi. In Magh
13/14 (January, 1910), he became Chela and lives in Math. Plaintiff allegation is that all the
rights which the defendant had in the property was extinguished and the plaintiff alone is in
possession; that one Mahabir defendant's karinda interferes in plaintiff's possession hence this
suit.
The defendant says that he cannot be deprived of the property although he left the Girhast
Ashram and given up all connections:
Issues:
1. Has the defendant any right in the property in dispute and have all his rights been extinguished
on account of his having become a Sanyasi?
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed?

13
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
FINDINGS
It is admitted that the defendant became a Sanyasi has retired from the world and interest into a
religion's life. It is also admitted that he has left all connections with his family and lives in a
Math and has given up Girhast Ashram and his connections with his family. The defendant also
admits that the plaintiff is in possession of all the property. There is nothing to show the from the
time he entered a religions life, he ever remained in possession of any portion of the property and
managed it. Defendant's retirement appears to be an absolute one and amounts to a civil death.
He has of his own accord abandoned all earthily interests. The facts of the case are admitted,
they absolute abandonment by the defendant of all secular property of a complete and final
withdrawal from earthly affairs. The defendant having renounced the world all the property
rested in him passed to his heirs or to the other embers of the joint family 1e. the Craigtill. A
sanyasi can hold no property according to Hindu Law. He cannot get it even if he returns to the
world again (Ghose Hibdoo has 2nd Edition P. 224. 781 Mayne Hindu Law. pp 677, 801, 816 -
7th Edition). My finding on both issues is against the defendant and I hold that the plaintiff is
entitled to the relief claimed.
The plaintiff's claim is therefore decreed with costs.
Sd / Illegible
03.08.1910"
15. Perusal of the civil Court judgement / decree dated 3.8.1910 as
quoted above fully demonstrate that Raghubir (father of Markandey) had
become Sanyasi as such, Raghubir was deprived to inherit joint family
property and suit filed by Raghunandan (father of Satya Narain) was
decreed.
16. Settlement Officer of Consolidation considering the entire aspect of
the matter has allowed the appeal and refused the co-tenancy granted to
Markandey recording finding of fact that co-tenancy cannot be allowed
in favour of respondent no.3/ Markandey as respondent no.3 become
chela of Raghunandan Giri of the Math. A gift deed dated 4.8.1941 and
the will-deed dated 29.5.1934 were also taken into consideration by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation in holding that respondent no.3

14
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
cannot be given co-tenancy after becoming chela of the Mahant in the
Math. 
17. Considering the categorical finding recorded by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation as well as the judgement and decree passed by
the Civil Court in Suit no.10 of 1910, which has attained finality,
respondent no.3 as well as respondent nos.5 & 6 who are sons of
respondent no.3 cannot be given co-tenancy as respondent no.3 become
chela of Mahant of the Math. 
18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned revisional order dated 16.9.1982 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation in Writ- B No.11303 of 1982 is liable to be set aside and
same is hereby set aside.
19. The Writ- B No.11303 of 1982 is accordingly allowed and order
passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20.10.1975 is
hereby maintained. 
20. In view of the above, the Writ- B No.14250 of 1982 filed by
petitioner- Markandey is dismissed considering the fact that Writ- B
No.11303 of 1982 filed by Satya Narain has been allowed on merit
maintaining the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 
21. The Writ- B No.1817 of 2024 filed by petitioners- Anand Dev Giri
and another is allowed and respondents are restrained from interfering

15
Writ-B No.11303 of 1982
with the possession of the petitioners with respect to the khata in dispute
in any manner. 
22. No order as to costs.  
July 8, 2026
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Rameez
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad