Nand Lal Chaturvedi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman / Secy. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28631

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 966 of 2024

Petitioner :- Nand Lal Chaturvedi Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman / Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Nath Verma,Rakesh Pathak,Vijai Bahadur Verma,Vikas Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the private-respondent.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶8

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.06.2024, passed by the Member (Judicial) of opposite party number 1 in Revision No. 2123/2022/Ayodhya, Computerized Case No. R20220423002133 (Nand Lal Chaturvedi Vs. Shanti Devi and others) and the order dated 23.09.2019, passed by opposite party number 2 Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Revision No. 01699/2018 Computerized Case No. C201804000001699 (Naumi Deen Vs. State of U.P. and others), contained as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition;

¶9

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing / commanding the opposite parties to recognize the user and possession of the petitioner upon the land of Gata No. 400 min. area 0.043 hectare situate in Village Devkali (Bahar Nagar Palika), Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya and thereby update the revenue records pertaining to aforesaid land;"

¶10

Subject matter of the present petition relates to correction of revenue records.

¶11

Aforesaid for the reason that initially an application for correction of records in terms of Section 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'Act of 1901') was preferred by Naumi Deen, (predecessor-in-interest of respondents no. 4 to 9 namely Smt. Shanti Devi, Prahlad, Raj Bali, Parsuram, Kesari Nandan and Raj Kumar, respectively) and this application was decided vide order dated 25.06.2018 and the order dated 25.06.2018 was challenged before the revisional authority namely

¶12

Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Revision No. 01699/2018, Computerized Case No. C201804000001699 (Naumi Deen Vs. State of U.P. and others) and this revision was allowed by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 23.09.2019 and thereafter the petitioner challenged the order dated 23.09.2019 in Revision No. 2123/2022/Ayodhya, Computerized Case No. R20220423002133 (Nand Lal Chaturvedi Vs. Shanti Devi and others) before the respondent no.1/Board of Revenue at Lucknow and this revision has been dismissed vide order dated 14.06.2024.

¶13

It is to be noted that the proceedings related to correction of revenue records are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties. Furthermore, the order passed in proceedings of such nature are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.

¶14

Section 40A of the Act of 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no order passed in the proceedings related to correction of revenue records shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid as also that the issue involved in this petition i.e. the rights available to the petitioner on the basis of possession over the land in dispute could be decided in regular proceedings, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order(s). Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy already been availed.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, would pass the order after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nand Lal Chaturvedi v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman / Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Lal Chaturvedi v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman / Secy. and 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

Umang Pathak Vs Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Ramdev Thru. Power of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav Vs Board of Revenue, Thru. Chairman, Lucknow and Others

Irshad Educational and Welfare Society, Barabanki Thru. Manager, Parvej Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate / Collector, Barabanki and Others

Ram Yash and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Dewanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Dayanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others