Disposed¶21

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025A482/8212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Application u/s 482 (quashing/jurisdiction); Section 164(1) BNSS; Earlier Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.; attachment of property; SDM Pratapgarh; Case No.9083/2024; gata no. 444(38 a)/plot no.444 Ka; interim stay of attachment order dated 07.03.2025; ex-parte order; natural justice/opportunity of hearing; mutation order dated 16.7.2010 by Naib Tehsildar, Sadar; Vijay Kumar Yadav vs Arun Kumar Yadav; notice to opposite party no.6; interim order dated 14.10.2025; Lucknow Bench, Court No. 16; single judge Brij Raj Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: operation of the impugned SDM order dated 7.3.2025 stayed till the next date of listing; notice issued to opposite party no.6, returnable at an early date. Final determination of the Section 482 application remains pending. ¶21

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the attachment order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the SDM, Pratapgarh in Case No.9083/2024 under section 164(1) BNSS (earlier Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.) attaching gata no. 444(38 a) ought to be quashed, given the applicant's claim of long-standing possession and mutation of the plot in his mother's favour.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, the Court directed that till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 7.3.2025 passed by the SDM shall remain stayed; notice was issued to opposite party no.6, returnable at an early date, with the matter listed after service.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Brij Raj Singh, J.), interim order dated October 14, 2025 in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8212 of 2025, Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others. The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Pratapgarh in Case No.9083/2024 (Computerized Case No.T-202402570309083), Vijay Kumar Yadav vs Arun Kumar Yadav, under section 164(1) BNSS (Earlier Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.), attaching property bearing gata no. 444(38 a). Counsel for the applicant submitted that the SDM had itself observed the applicant's long possession over the disputed land; plot no.444 Ka was purchased by the applicant's mother and mutated in her favour vide order dated 16.7.2010 of the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar; at most the opposite parties could have been advised to file a suit; and the impugned order was passed ex-parte without opportunity of hearing. The Court found the matter to require consideration, issued notice to opposite party no.6 returnable at an early date, and directed that till the next date of listing the impugned order dated 7.3.2025 shall remain stayed. No final opinion on the legality of the attachment order was expressed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8212 of 2025

Arun Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartikay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 16

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

The present application has been filed with the following main prayer:

¶12

"That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 (contained as Annexure No.1 to this petition) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Pratapgarh in Case No.9083/2024, Computerized Case No.T-202402570309083, Vijay Kumar Yadav vs Arun Kumar Yadav under section 164(1) BNSS (Earlier Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.), District Pratapgarh, for attachment of property bearing gata no. 444(38 a) in which the applicant is not the actual owner instead the property is under the name of the brother and mother of the applicant in the interest of justice.

¶13

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Pratapgarh in Case No.9083/2024, Computerized Case No.T-202402570309083, Vijay Kumar Yadav vs Arun Kumar Yadav under section 164(1) BNSS (Earlier Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.), District Pratapgarh during the pendency of the instant petition, in the interest of justice."

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the

¶15

A482 No. 8212 of 2025

¶16

¶17

impugned order dated 7.3.2025 indicates that the SDM concerned has observed that possession of the applicant is there on the land in dispute since long time and there is dispute between the parties. It has been submitted that once possession of the applicant is there on the spot since long then there was no question of passing the attachment order. He further submits that the land in question i.e. plot no.444 Ka is purchased by the mother of applicant and there is mutation in her favour vide order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar. The possession of the applicant is standing since long time and the SDM could not have passed the order for attachment. At the most, opposite party nos.2 to 6 could have been advised to file a suit. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has not been given any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order was passed ex-parte.

¶18