Vinod Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

Special Appeal No.406 of 2025 (Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and others)

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75267-DB

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 406 of 2025

¶5

Appellant :- Vinod Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and 4 others Counsel for Appellant :- Mr . Girish Kumar Singh, Mr. Karuna Nidhi Pandey, Mr. M.R. Gupta

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Amit Gupta for Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Mr. Manta Ram Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Singh, A.C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. The instant appeal raises a challenge to the order dated 03.04.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitioner-appellant’s Writ-C No.9023 of 2025 (Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) taking note of a preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as regards institution of a Civil Suit No.668 of 2023 by the petitioner himself, which fact had not been disclosed by him in the writ petition.

¶10

3. Brief facts are that raising a dispute regarding certain revenue entries existing on record, the petitioner filed an objection before Sub Divisional Officer, Jakhania, Ghazipur, which was rejected on 02.12.2023. The petitioner, immediately thereafter, filed the aforesaid Civil Suit No.668 of 2023 on or about 14.12.2023 claiming a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in relation to the land covered by Gata No.382. During pendency

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

Special Appeal No.406 of 2025 (Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and others)

¶13

of the suit, the order dated 02.12.2023 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ-C No.44365 of 2023 which was allowed on 10.01.2024, the order dated 02.12.2023 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned to decide the same afresh. Pursuant to the said order, the Sub-Divisional Officer again rejected the petitioner’s objection by order dated 28.02.2025. It was this order which was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ-C No.9023 of 2025 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 03.04.2025.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of filing of the civil suit was not justified, inasmuch as, the suit was filed claiming relief only in relation to part of land covered by Gata No.382, whereas the dispute before the Sub-Divisional Officer was in relation to certain erroneous entries existing on record, which he was duty bound to correct in exercise of powers under the UTTAR PRADESH ABADI SURVEY AND RECORD OPERATION REGULATIONS, 2020. Further submission is that relief claimed in the suit was only for injunction and, hence, the suit would have no relevance as regards record of rights and pointing out certain alleged infirmities in the order dated 28.02.2025, submissions have been made that the writ court should have examined the correctness of the order impugned before it irrespective of institution/pendency of the suit.

¶15

5. Per contra , learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 submit that reliefs claimed in the suit are in relation to the same property and since the petitioner had concealed filing of the suit, learned Single Judge has not erred in

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

Special Appeal No.406 of 2025 (Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and others)

¶18

dismissing the writ petition for non-disclosure of the same and has rightly found it to be a material concealment.

¶19

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the first order as regards mutation entries was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 02.12.2023, immediately whereafter, the petitioner himself chose to file a civil suit. In paragraphs 9 and 11 of the plaint, specific reference to the order dated 02.12.2023 was given. The plaint, when read as a whole, reflects that the petitionerappellant had claimed a decree for injunction terming the order dated 02.12.2023 as illegal and arbitrary. Pending civil suit, Writ-C No.44365 of 2023 was filed by the appellant and it appears from the order dated 10.01.2024 that the factum of filing of suit was not even brought to the notice of the writ court on earlier occasion too. Even after remand, the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the SubDivisional Officer does not indicate anything about institution of the suit. Rather, it reflects from operative portion of the said order that Sub-Divisional Officer has also granted liberty to the parties to approach competent court for getting adjudication of their title with a further observation that land being covered by abadi , no proceedings from the Revenue department were warranted.

¶20

7. As far as submission that only a decree for injunction has been claimed in the suit and, therefore, it would be of no significance as regards determination of record of rights, the same is thoroughly misplaced. The reason is that grant or refusal of a decree for injunction would implicitly involve a question of title vis-a-vis possession and the record of rights would follow the decree passed by the civil court. Therefore, whatever adjudication has been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the order dated

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

Special Appeal No.406 of 2025 (Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and others)

¶23

28.02.2025 would certainly be subject to determination to be made by the civil court in the pending Civil Suit No.668 of 2023.

¶24

8. In view of the above discussion, once this Court finds that institution of suit was not brought to the notice of the writ court, the learned Single Judge has not erred in exercising his discretionary jurisdiction to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of concealment of material fact.

¶25

9. We are not inclined to take a different view of the matter. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Jyotsana

¶27

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶28

4 of 4

¶29

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

Vinod Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Dronacharya Sewa Sansthan vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Jai Maa Sarveshwari Movers (through Its Partner Sri Unnat Kumar Singh) vs State of Up and Another

Gyanendra Singh vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Choudhary Associates vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachchuram Ramswaroop Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Union of India and 9 Others