Dismissed¶13

Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025WRIC/10959/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi of a complainant/third party to enforce or seek execution of a judicial order passed in proceedings to which he was not a party; mandamus for compliance with order dated 28.10.2024 under Section 67, U.P. Revenue Code 2006; Section 67 order appealable in terms of the Code; PIL-triggered revenue proceedings; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.; WRIT - C No. 10959 of 2024; 2025:AHC-LKO:8237; decided 7.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not a party to the Section 67 proceedings; his concerns were adequately met once the proceedings were initiated, and complainant status does not give him locus to seek execution of a judicial order passed between two other distinct parties. ¶12

Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Maintainability/locus standi: whether the petitioner, who was not a party to the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (having acted only as complainant in a PIL that triggered them), can maintain a writ petition seeking mandamus to make respondent no.2 comply with the judicial order dated 28.10.2024.

¶9

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court will not entertain a petition at the behest of a third party seeking mandamus for implementation of a judicial order passed in proceedings to which the petitioner was not a party.

¶12

Key takeaways

The order dated 28.10.2024 is a judicial order passed in exercise of statutory powers under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and is appealable in terms of the Code itself.ratio¶11
Passing observation: if the order dated 28.10.2024 has attained finality, the State will be obliged to do the needful to take the proceedings to their logical conclusion.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8, Jaspreet Singh, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:8237; WRIT - C No. 10959 of 2024; order dated 7.2.2025. Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. (Through Principal Secretary, Revenue) & Ors. The petitioner sought mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to comply with an order dated 28.10.2024 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, which proceedings had been initiated in pursuance of a Public Interest Litigation in which the petitioner was a complainant. Held: the petitioner was not a party to those proceedings; the order of 28.10.2024 is a judicial order passed in exercise of statutory powers under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and is appealable in terms of the Code itself; the matter lies between the State and the person against whom the proceedings were initiated; complainant status does not confer locus standi on a third party to seek execution or implementation of a judicial order passed between two other distinct parties, and such a petition will not be entertained. Observed (obiter): if the order has attained finality, the State will be obliged to do the needful to take the proceedings to their logical conclusion. Petition dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8237

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10959 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Civil Secretariat Lucknow And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Angrej Nath Shukla,Rajendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to comply with an order dated 28.10.2024 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

¶9

A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to how the instant petition is maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code 2006.

¶10

In response, it has been stated that since the proceedings were initiated in pursuance of a Public Interest Litigation where the petitioner was a complainant, accordingly he has ample locus to maintain this petition.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that is so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was not a party to the proceedings under section 67 of the Code, 2006. He may have been a complainant upon which the proceedings were triggered and which has resulted in the order dated 28.10.2024. However, the same is a judicial order passed in exercise of statutory powers under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. The said order is appealable in terms of the Code itself. However,

¶12

that is the matter between the State and the person against whom the proceedings were initiated. The petitioner who was merely a complainant and his concerns have been adequately met once the proceedings were initiated but this does not give locus to the petitioner to seek execution of an order passed in judicial proceedings between two other distinct parties. Hence, this Court does not find it appropriate to entertain the petition at the behest of the third party to seek mandamus for implementation of a judicial order passed in proceedings where petitioner was not a party. Needless to say that if the order in question has attained finality then the State will be obliged to do the needful to take the proceedings to its logical conclusion.

¶13

6. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 ank

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Singh @ Ravi Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

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

Kailash Nath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shravasti and Others

Smt. Sita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Shahana Khatoon Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Siya Ram Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 4 Others