Dismissed¶13

Shyam Kishor Goswami v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2025WPIL/1531/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court PIL 1531 of 2025 Shyam Kishor Goswami v State of U.P.; transfer of Gata No. 445 to Gata No. 2591, Mauja/Village Rahaliya, Pargana/District Mahoba; land recorded as 'Pahad'; prior litigation: District Magistrate Mahoba order 19.03.2018 set aside by Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Division 13.08.2019; petition filed six years later cannot be countenanced; dismissed 13.11.2025; bench: Arun Bhansali CJ, Kshitij Shailendra J.

What did the court decide?

Once litigation pertaining to the said subject matter has already taken place, a petition filed after that litigation came to an end in 2019 — six years later — cannot be countenanced. ¶12

Shyam Kishor Goswami vs State of Up and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1531 of 2025

Shyam Kishor Goswami

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and 4 others	.....R	espondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Chandra Prakash Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sudhanshu Srivastava Achal Singh	(A.C.S.C.),

¶7

Chief Justice's Court

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶9

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief in relation to transfer of Gata No. 445, Mauja Rahaliya, Village Rahaliya, Pargana Mahoba, District Mahoba to another Division on Gata No. 2591.

¶10

Submissions have been made that the land in question is recorded as 'Pahad' which could not have been permitted to be transferred.

¶11

A perusal of the record indicates that pertaining to the same subject matter, the District Magistrate, Mahoba had passed order dated 19.03.2018 which order came to be set aside by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division on 13.08.2019.

¶12

Once, litigation pertaining to the said subject matter has already taken place, filing of a petition, after the litigation came to an end in 2019, after six years, cannot be countenanced.

¶13

The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶14

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

¶15

November 13, 2025 SL/AHA

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Kishor Goswami v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kishor Goswami v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lallan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Soorya Prakash Chaturvedi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gorakh Prasad vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Union of India and 2 Others vs Sudhir Kumar and 29 Others

Devanand vs State of U.P. and 5 Others