Disposed

Vasim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2025WRIC/10420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (WRIT-C 10420/2025, Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench, decided 07.11.2025) seeking enforcement directions for removal of encroachment over Gata No. 887, Village Bharbharva (Modlaha), Bahraich, was consigned to records without any direction because the underlying Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 order of 17.05.2025 (Case No. 6839/2024, Gaon Sabha Versus Hanif) had been appealed by Hanif un

What did the court decide?

None — no direction was issued; notice to respondent No. 6 was dispensed with and the petition was consigned to records.

Vasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10420 of 2025

Vasim

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U. P. through Principal Secretary Department of Revenue; And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Suresh Chandra Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Sabha/ respondent No. 5.

¶12

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties/ respondents to remove the encroachment including the pavement laid by the opposite party No. 6 over the plot of land having Gata No. 887/ area 0.1980 hectares, at Village- Bharbharva (Modlaha), Paragana- Fakharpur, Tehsil- Mahasi, District- Bahraich.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order under Section 67 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed by the Tehsildar, TehsilMahasi, District- Bahraich on 17.05.2025 in a Case bearing No. 6839/2024 (Gaon Sabha Versus Hanif) but the same has not yet been enforced.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents on the basis of instructions dated 13.10.2025 provided to him by Tehsildar, Tehsil- Mahasi, District- Bahraich has stated at Bar that the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2025 passed under Section 67 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been challenged by the respondent No. 6 namely Hanif under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before

¶15

WRIC No. 10420 of 2025

¶16

¶17

the Court of Chief Revenue Officer, District- Bahraich.

¶18

In view of the proposed order being passed, notice to the respondent No. 6 is hereby dispensed with.

¶19

Taking into consideration the fact, as stated above, that the aforesaid order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been challenged in a statutory appeal, no direction, as prayed for by the petitioner, is required to be passed by this Court in the instant writ petition, at this stage.

¶20

In view of the above, the petition is consigned to records.

¶21

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶22

November 7, 2025 (Manoj K.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vasim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shalini Bajpai @ Sonal @ Shalini Devi vs Ashutosh Bajpai

Smt. Anshu Kumari Alias Anshu vs Ramesh Chandra

Mamta Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Fahim Qureshi Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Distt. Ayodhya and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Nidhi Tiwari vs Abhishek Tiwari