Dismissed

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025CMRA/321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review application challenging an interim stay on eviction proceedings was dismissed. The Court held the applicant's claim was distinguishable from others due to different land ownership and nature of encroachment but directed him to file an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for redressal.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; applicant directed to file application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Ram Niwas vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 321 of 2025

¶3

Ram Niwas

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

¶6

Court No. - 36

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

A review has been sought of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed in WritC No. 27869 of 2025 on the ground that land in question is a minjumla number and on the same day in eight different matters, interim order was granted against eviction proceedings carried out under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was affirmed in appeal.

¶10

After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that annexure-2 to the review application is interim order which has been granted is of different districts and does not relate to same minjumla number. He also submitted that interim order has been granted against eviction proceedings and the same benefit should be passed on to the applicant.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material on record.

¶12

It is an admitted case that finding has been recorded by both revenue authorities to the extent that house in question has been constructed over a chak road and parity which is being claimed by applicant on the other interim orders granted on the same day relates to different districts and different plot numbers. The benefit as granted to other petitioners cannot be extended to the applicant as his claim is distinguishable from the facts of those cases as he has encroached upon the land of Gaon Sabha and had

¶13

CMRA No. 321 of 2025

¶14

¶15

made construction over chak road.

¶16

No interference can be caused in the order which is sought to be reviewed.

¶17

Review application is misconceived and stands dismissed.

¶18

However, it is open to the applicant to approach the authorities for redressal of his grievance by filing application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶19

October 28, 2025

¶20

V.S.Singh

¶21

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Sen vs Dr. Raj Shree (Additional Director) Central Goverment Health Scheme and Another

Radha Krishna Yadav vs Deepak Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education and 3 Others

Raj Narayan vs Shri Anil Kumar, Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Another

Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 Other vs Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh

Imran Hashmi vs Shri Prem Shankar (H.J.S.)

Ghani Since Deceased and 4 Others vs Smt. Haseena Bano (Since Deceased) and 13 Others