Disposed¶19

Raju and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2025WRIC/11355/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ-c 11355/2025 raju v state of u.p. barabanki lucknow bench; patta agricultural allotment; bhumidhar without right to transfer; gata 929/2 minzumla 0.511 hectare village basara pargana kursi khata no. 00661 khatauni 1430-1435 fasli; section 198(4) u.p. z.a. & l.r. act; state vs raju decided 28.09.2017; gram pradhan pappu jaiswal encroachment; demarcation complaint 15.11.2025; temple and road land excluded; gram sabha property; possession not delivered of allotted portion; tehsildar fatehpur short counter affidavit directed; listed 16.12.2025 top ten board; sangeeta chandra amitabh kumar rai; interim hearing no merits decided.

What the court decided

Raju and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11355 of 2025

Raju And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Revenue Deptt. Lko And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Santosh Kumar Yadav, Mamta Raj
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Barabanki to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2025 and to remove illegal encroachment from the petitioners' land, which had been allotted to them for agricultural purposes on patta .

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has produced before this Court the instructions sent by the Tehsildar, Fatehpur, Barabanki, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner along with his wife submitted a complaint on 15.11.2025 regarding Gata No. 929/2 Minzumla area 0.511 hectare situated in Village Basara, Pargana Kursi, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It was alleged therein that the current Gram Pradhan and his father, Pappu Jaiswal had encroached upon the said land and demarcation should be carried out to protect the land of the petitioners/complainant. A spot inspection was conducted and the relevant records were also examined. It was found that in the Khatauni 1430–1435 Fasli, Khata No. 00661, Gata No. 929/2, Minzumla area 0.511 hectare is recorded in the names of the petitioner and his wife. However, they are Bhumidhar without the right to transfer such land being allottees under the said allotment. An application was filed and the case, State vs. Raju under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was instituted. It was decided on 28.09.2017 and the order dated 28.09.2017 has also been incorporated in the Khatauni. The said order

¶14

WRIC No. 11355 of 2025

¶15

¶16

clearly states that the allottees, Raju S/o Babu and his wife Babli and the allottee, Mukesh S/o Pyare along with his wife over allotted Gata No. 924/3, have been given possession only of that portion of land which they are presently occupying. The land on which a temple and a road exist shall not be treated as allotted to the petitioners or to the other allottee, Mukesh and his wife. Such land cannot be said to be vacant and it shall continue to remain the property of the Gram Sabha. A copy of the said instructions is kept on record.

¶17

However, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out at this stage that the petitioners have not been given possession even of that portion of land which was duly allotted to them and which has been held in the judgment and order dated 28.09.2017 to have been validly allotted to them. He submits that the petitioners are not concerned with the land containing the temple or the road, which has been excluded from their allotment, they are concerned only with being given possession of the land validly allotted to them.

¶18

Respondent no.5, Tehsildar, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki, is directed to file a short counter affidavit.

¶19

List this case on 16.12.2025 within top ten cases of the Board.

¶20

December 5, 2025 Mahesh

¶21

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶22

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

Raju and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raju and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Babulal vs State Bank of India , Alambagh , Lko. Thru. Authorised Officer / Branch Manager and Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Subodh Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 16 Others

Shiv Baran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 9 Others

Ramrati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another