Disposed¶17

Vipin Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2025/8981/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UP Revenue Code Section 24 demarcation writ; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, WRIT-C 8981/2025, Vipin Maurya v. State of U.P., decided 12.09.2025 (Sangeeta Chandra & Brij Raj Singh, JJ.). Keywords: mandamus; demarcation Gata Nos. 2500, 2502, 2429; village Usraha, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar; SDM Jalalpur order dated 20.12.2024; Case No.T202404040208628; appeal Case No.C202504000000960 pending before Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal; conditional compliance direction; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Conditional direction: in case the pending appeal (Case No.C202504000000960) is decided in favour of the petitioner, necessary steps be taken for compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024 expeditiously; instructions of SDM, Jalalpur dated 09.09.2025 kept on record. ¶17

Vipin Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding demarcation of Gata Nos. 2500, 2502 and 2429, village Usraha, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, in pursuance of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in computerized case No. T202404040208628 under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that in case the pending appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner, necessary steps be taken for compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024 expeditiously; no immediate unconditional mandamus for demarcation was issued.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 2 — Writ - C No. 8981 of 2025, Vipin Maurya v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others; decided September 12, 2025 by Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. and Brij Raj Singh, J. Petitioner, whose Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 application had been allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur by order dated 20.12.2024 in Case No.T202404040208628 (directing demarcation and erection of boundary wall of Gata Nos. 2500, 2502, 2429, village Usraha, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar), sought mandamus for actual demarcation, compliance having been withheld. Per instructions of SDM Jalalpur dated 09.09.2025, respondent Manik Lal's appeal Case No.C202504000000960 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya is pending (next hearing 06.10.2025). Court disposed of the petition, directing that if the appeal is decided in the petitioner's favour, necessary steps be taken for compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024 expeditiously. No precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8981 of 2025

Vipin Maurya

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar, Shivam Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State Respondent nos.1 to 5.

¶12

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶13

"(i). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 2 to demarcate the land in question i.e. Gata No.2500, 2502, 2429 situated at village Usraha Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar in pursuance to the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in computerized case No. T202404040208628 (Vipin Maurya and others vs. Manik lal and others filed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is contained as Annexure no. 4 within a stipulated time framed in the interest of justice. "

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code which was allowed but the demarcation of the aforesaid land in question was not done by the authorities. The petitioner has made several applications but to no avail, hence the present petition has been filed.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the instructions sent by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalalpur, dated 09.09.2025 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had made an application under Section 24 in relation to Gata Nos. 2500, 2502, 2429 situated at village Usraha, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and after preliminary report was received, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has decided the case No.T202404040208628 (Vipin Maurya and others vs. Manik lal and others) on 20.12.2024 and directed demarcation and erection of boundary wall. Against such order, the respondent Manik Lal has approached the Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya where his case No.C202504000000960 (Maniklal vs. Vipin Maurya) is pending and the next date fixed in the matter before the Additional Commissioner is 06.10.2025.

¶16

Instructions are kept on record.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case, the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner, necessary steps be taken for compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024 expeditiously.

¶18

September 12, 2025 Pks

¶19

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vipin Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Akhtar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Khaleeq and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and Another

Md. Amir Vs U.O.I. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Shokat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Kajal Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others