Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4896 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 50 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Chander Verma Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Faizabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Reference Case No. 222 of 2025 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Hausla) under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1953) dated 29.11.2012. The petitioner has also prayed that the proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 may also be quashed. Sri Aditya Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question has been purchased by the petitioner from its erstwhile owner Sri Hausla who has been impleaded as respondent no. 2 vide sale deed dated 11.05.2007. It is further urged that the petitioner was never aware of the proceedings of Reference and neither the same was disclosed by Sri Hausla. It is only after the Gaon Sabha initiated proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. C.H. Rules, 1954 that the petitioner became aware of the proceedings of the Reference and the order passed on 29.11.2012 and thereafter having made the necessary inquiries, the instant petition has been filed. It is further urged that the Plot No. 780 was purchased by the petitioner from Hausla and despite Hausla contesting the reference proceedings, he did not inform the petitioner about it and got the order of reference passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is also urged that Hausla did not inform the Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding sale of the plot in the year 2007. Even though, Sri Hausla had moved an application for recall of the order passed in Reference by its application dated 14.12.2004 which was pending at the time when the said sale deed was executed by him in favour of the petitioner. It is thus urged that the order impugned are bad and it has the impact of carving out the chak road over the plot of the petitioner which is not only illegal but also creates impediment and hardships in farming activities of the petitioner as Plot No. 780 stands bifurcated in three parts. It is further urged that the impugned order is bad apart from the fact that it is ex-parte and as such deserves to be set aside. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material on record. The record would indicate that Plot No. 780 was recorded in the name of Hausla. The Consolidation Authorities finding certain discrepancies in the records entertained a Reference which initially came to be allowed vide order dated 11.12.2003. The said order dated 11.12.2003 was ex-parte and Sri Hausla being aggrieved moved an application for recall on 14.12.2004, a copy of the said application is on record as Annexure No. 7. The record further indicates that the said recall application of Sri Hausla was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of his order dated 02.06.11 and further directed the parties to make their submissions on merit on 29.06.2011. The record further reflects a fact which is undisputed that Sri Hausla executed a sale deed in respect of Plot No. 780 in favour of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 11.05.2007. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice the initial order of reference dated 11.12.2003 which was ex-parte for which Sri Hausla had moved an application on 14.12.2004 came to be allowed on 02.06.2011. This is clearly indicative of the fact that the sale deed executed by Hausla in favour of the petitioner in the year 2007 was during the pendency of the Reference proceedings (as the recall application moved by Hausla) was pending. During the entire proceedings, Sri Hausla did not indicate in any manner that he had sold the property to the present petitioner, however, the fact remains that Sri Hausla continued to prosecute the said proceedings till 02.06.2011 when his application for recall was allowed. Once the application was allowed, the matter i.e. Reference was once again open to be contested on merits and by means of order dated 29.11.2012, the Reference was decided upholding the earlier view which was taken on 11.12.2003. While passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2012, it was specifically noticed that Sri Hausla had given his consent for connecting Plot No. 525 and 526 by getting a chak marg on Plot No. 514, a copy of an affidavit was also filed wherein Sri Hausla accepted that there was a compromise in between the parties and he did not have any objection in case if the plot nos. 525 and 526, they were connected by a Chak road. In the aforesaid circumstances, once Sri Haushla had been contesting the proceedings, it was open for the petitioners to have sought their impleadment and in case if they were not informed by Sri Hausla about the proceedings, but nevertheless, the petitioner would be the transferee pendente lite as his sale deed of the year 2007 was executed while the recall application was pending, hence, they are covered by the doctrine of lis pendense. Once, the predecessors-in-interest i.e. the vendor of the petitioner had contested the proceedings uptil the year 2012 and there was never any challenge to it, now it is not open for the petitioner to state that he was not informed or he has no knowledge about the order dated 29.11.2012. Moreover, an attempt is being made to assail an order in Reference passed in the year 2012 after more than 12 years and in paragraph 33 and 34 of the petition, an attempt has been made to justify the laches. This Court finds that once the Reference was being contested by the vendor of the petitioners i.e. Sri Hausla and the petitioner even though not a party therein cannot re-agitate the same issue as the petitioner would be bound by the doctrine of lis pendens and even the cause shown to justify the laches does not appear to be cogent to persuade this Court to entertain the present petition which for the aforesaid reasons is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench