State Must Be Impleaded As Necessary Party In Consolidation Proceedings Involving 'Gaon Sabha' Land: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan held thus:

"…once the area is notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act then by virtue of Section 11(c), the consolidation authorities acquires the right to direct that any land vested in the State Government, Gaon Sabha or any other local body authority duly recorded in its name and in the said circumstances any land which has been categorized as a public utility land under Section 77(1)(H) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the State becomes a necessary party in matter concerning the lands of the Gaon Sabha".

With this, the single judge set aside a May 2025 order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC), Hathras wherein a 2010 was set aside order despite the fact that the said 2010 order had been upheld by the High Court in August 2024.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the dispute concerned a piece of land in Village Amokhari, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, which was allotted to the petitioner (Ravendra Singh) during consolidation proceedings in 1996 and his name was duly recorded in revenue records. He continues to be in the possession of said parcel of land till date.

Later, an appeal against the consolidation proceedings was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (SOC) and the same was dismissed in August 1999.

A revision against that decision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC), who, after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision in March 2010 and thus, that 1999 order became final.

However, after a change in village leadership, the newly elected Gram Pradhan moved a recall application before the DDC in January 2025.

It was claimed that the land was actually cremation ground (public utility land) and that the earlier consolidation proceedings had caused a loss of 0.520 hectares to the Gram Sabha.

The DDC Hathras accepted her plea and on May 9, 2025, it set aside the 2010 order. Challenging this very order, the petitioner moved the HC.

High Court's observations

Before dealing with the issue at hand, Court delved into the broader question of whether the State should be made a necessary party in cases relating to Gaon Sabha lands.

Relying on the affidavits filed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Court noted that Section 213 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 mandates that the State Government shall be made a party to any suit instituted by or against a Gram Panchayat or local authority.

Further, it also referred to Appendix II to Rule 74(f) of the UP-Revenue Code Rules, 2016 [particularly Para 18(1) and (2) and Para 13(2)], which stipulate that the Collector must appoint a Special Officer to conduct the case and any written statement on behalf of the State must be duly signed by the Collector.

The Court agreed with the State's submission that joinder of the State as a co-respondent in consolidation matters concerning Gaon Sabha lands and properties is essential, in order to protect the interest of the State.

Furthermore, Justice Nandan made significant observations on the nature of Gaon Sabha land as he stated that the Gaon Sabha is merely a custodian and not the owner of such lands, which vest in the State by virtue of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and subsequent Revenue Code provisions.

"It is high time to determine whether the State is a necessary party in proceedings, especially when the context is possibly with respect to land which is a public utility land or a State land", the Court remarked.

The Court also took judicial notice of recurring instances where an elected Pradhan initiates litigation only for subsequent office-bearers to withdraw proceedings. This, the Court said, sometimes resulting in 'unwarranted' benefits to an individual and loss to the Government.

The single judge thus held that the true owner being the State must be impleaded to ensure consistency and fairness in litigation over Gaon Sabha properties.

Against this backdrop, the Court set aside the DDC's order dated May 9, 2025 and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras, with specific directions:

1. to take a decision within two months regarding the application dated 25.10.2021 filed by the Gram Pradhan in Revision No.76/341 under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, against the order dated 30.03.2010;
2. the revisional court shall also adjudicate on the question of its own jurisdiction, as to whether, a review/recall application can be entertained, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shivraji & others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others 1997 and also the HC's judgment and order in Writ-B No.11144 of 2015 (Ravendra Singh vs. D.D.C. and others), while considering the plea of the State, pertaining to any fraud being involved;
3. State may be directed to be impleaded as a necessary party before proceeding in the matter.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court also concluded that equity demands adherence to finality of judicial orders and protection of State interests in public utility lands.