Land-Suit Plaintiff Who Disclaimed Rights In Unchallenged Sale Deed Cannot Challenge Order Setting Aside Decree: Allahabad HC

The petitioner and two others brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, seeking a declaration of co-bhumidhar rights over two plots.

After an initial ex parte decree was set aside on appeal and the suit was remanded, the suit was again decreed in 2019.

On revision by respondent No. 3, a purchaser claiming through a 2012 sale, the Additional Commissioner set aside the 2019 order and consigned the file to record.

The petitioner challenged that revisional order, disputing, among other matters, the revision’s maintainability and respondent No. 3’s locus.

The High Court found that the petitioner was named as a confirming party in the 2012 sale deed, which recorded that the confirming parties had no rights or concern in the disputed land; the petitioner had not directly challenged the deed or those recitals.

Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act permits revision in the circumstances specified there, including where an appeal lies but has not been preferred; the court held that the unexercised appellate remedy did not bar revision in this case.

Under Sections 2(a)–(c), 2(e), 4, 5–7 and 13–18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a communicated declaration may constitute a proposal and agreement, and a party seeking to avoid its effect must establish legally sustainable grounds such as absence of free consent, coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.

The High Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 may be withheld where granting relief would restore an unlawful order; unnecessary remand may also be avoided where it would generate further litigation without serving a useful purpose.

The Court held the revision maintainable because no statutory appeal had been filed and the petitioner had not raised the maintainability objection before the revisional authority.

It found that the petitioner was identified in the sale deed as a confirming party and that the deed expressly disclaimed his rights in the disputed plots.

As he had not challenged the deed or its recitals in appropriate proceedings, and had produced no material establishing that they were invalid or procured by fraud or other vitiating circumstances, he could not collaterally avoid their effect in the writ petition.

Although the revisional court’s stated ground—that the Sub-Divisional Officer could not restore the earlier decree—was not sufficient by itself, the petitioner’s lack of an enforceable basis to maintain the challenge, together with the Court’s discretionary assessment, did not justify interference.

The Court also declined remand as unnecessary and likely to prolong litigation.

The interim order dated 7 April 2023 was discharged.