Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3458

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11339 of 2024

Petitioner :- Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar,Jayendra Singh,Poonam Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

In pursuance of the order passed by the Court on 17.01.2025, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow Shri Saurabh Singh is present alongwith the original records.

¶8

The petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶9

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite party no.3 to execute the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by him in Case No.RST/03112/2018, computer No.D-201810460003112, Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust and others Vs. Zakir Ali and others under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, contained in annexure no.5 to this writ petition.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.4 take action in pursuance of the petitioner application/representation dated 01.08.2024.

¶11

The contention of the petitioners is that a suit for a division of land holding was initiated by the petitioner no.1 through petitioner no.2 who is the Chairman of the trust which came to be decreed by means of order dated 11.10.2018.

¶12

It is further submitted that despite the final decree proceedings have been initiated and the

¶13

scheme of partition prepared, the petitioners were not granted the possession of the said property in terms of the scheme of partition, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.3.

¶14

It is further urged that the petitioners had made several applications as way back in the year 2019 and even in the year 2020 upon which certain reports were called for but till date the order of partition by metes and bounds has not been duly implemented. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioners pray that a mandamus be issued commanding the respondent no.3 to execute the order dated 11.10.2018.

¶15

Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel submits that in so far as the order dated 11.10.2018 is concerned, the same is under the scrutiny of the Board of Revenue in proceedings initiated by the parties to the suit.

¶16

It has further been submitted that even in the instant petition the petitioners have not impleaded all the parties affected and merely the Staterespondents have been impleaded as a party.

¶17

It is also pointed out that upon the application moved by the petitioners in the year 2021, the demarcation had taken place and the share which fall in the petitioners claim was handed over. The said proceedings were signed by the petitioner no.2 himself on 02.04.2021 and in the instant circumstances, it is not correct as stated by the petitioners that the State has not implemented the order.

¶18

It has further been pointed out that there are certain discrepancies regarding the land in question as some area is little short and there are other proceedings which have come to light which gives rise to dispute relating to boundaries. In such circumstances, it will be appropriate for the petitioners to take recourse to law as may be available to get their share properly demarcated in context with the order dated 11.10.2018 apart from the fact that the same is under the active consideration of the Board of Revenue in a revision preferred by Zakir Ali, Hasim Ali and Smt.

¶19

Raseedan and in the said revision the petitioners are also parties. In such circumstances, it is stated that there is no laxcity on behalf of the State, accordingly, no mandamus may be granted.

¶20

Having considered the rival submissions and also after perusing the original records which have been placed before the Court, it appears that though the suit for division of land holding was initiated by the petitioners which came to be decided on 11.10.2018, the same is under challenge in a revision pending before the Board of Revenue and this is an undisputed fact.

¶21

The Court further notices that in the entire petition, it has not been stated that after the suit was decreed on 11.10.2018 who has encroached upon the land of the petitioners. It does not disclose when the alleged encroachment has taken place and this can be discerned from the application which has been brought on record by the petitioners themselves as annexure no.7 dated 29.05.2019. The fact that the petitioners have themselves indicated that certain persons who have their rights on the Plot No.444445446, they have encroached some part of the land and they have forcibly raised a boundary wall, this necessarily indicates that there are disputed questions and in garb of a writ of mandamus, these disputed questions cannot be ignored nor adjudicated by the court.

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances where on one hand the order of which implementation is sought by the petitioners is under scrutiny before the Board of Revenue and on the other hand there are certain conflicting claims including alleged encroachment as admitted by the petitioners themselves existing since May 2019, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed.

¶23

Be that as it may, since the petitioners have an order in their favour, of course, subject to the outcome of the revision pending in the Board of Revenue, it will be open for the petitioners to take recourse as may be available in law for removal of the encroachment as alleged by them and to that extent this Court does not deem appropriate to

¶24

make any observations. Needless to say, in case any such application is moved by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the Authorities in accordance with law.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed .

¶26

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 ank

¶27

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

Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 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

Krishn Dev Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Rahul @ Rahul Yadav and Others Vs Baord of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Guru Prasad Vs Board of Revenue Thru Secy Lucknow and Ors.

Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Bairistar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Shobhavati Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and and 3 Others