Dismissed¶15

Kushendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025WRIC/2382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gaon Sabha land trespasser; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code; Section 67(5) appeal; ceiling surplus land; Gata No. 734, area 1.165 hectares; oral permission by then Pradhan; no Collector allotment; liberty to seek allotment of State property from Collector, Hardoi; petition dismissed on 11.3.2025 by Manish Mathur, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:14792; no precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to file an appropriate application before opposite party no.2 (Collector, Hardoi) for allotment of any State property permissible in accordance with law. ¶15

Kushendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to petitioner to file an appropriate application before opposite party no.2 (Collector, Hardoi) for allotment of any State property permissible in accordance with law.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code declaring the petitioner a trespasser over Gaon Sabha plot Gata No. 734 (area 1.165 hectares), earlier declared surplus under ceiling proceedings, warrant interference in writ jurisdiction, given petitioner's own admission that the plot is recorded as ceiling land in the name of State and his sole plea of oral permission from the then Pradhan without any allotment by the Collector.

¶9

Court's answer

There is no averment by, or admission of, the petitioner that the plot was ever allotted to him by the competent authority, being the Collector of the District; the only plea taken is that petitioner, being a landless person, was permitted to cultivate the land by oral directions of the then Pradhan if found landless of the same village.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Considering the admission made by the petitioner, his position as a trespasser in possession of State property is clearly borne out.

¶12

Key takeaways

No interference is required to be made in the impugned orders.ratio¶13
Petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the opposite party no.2, i.e. Collector, Hardoi, for allotment of any State property which may be permissible in accordance with law.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 2382 of 2025, Manish Mathur, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, order dated 11.3.2025) challenged (i) an order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code declaring the petitioner a trespasser over Gaon Sabha plot Gata No. 734 (area 1.165 hectares), earlier declared surplus under ceiling proceedings, and (ii) the appellate order dated 21.06.2024 passed under Section 67(5) of the Code, whereby the Section 67 findings were reiterated. The petitioner admitted the plot stood recorded as ceiling land in the name of State in revenue records; no allotment by the Collector was pleaded, only oral permission allegedly given by the then Pradhan to a landless cultivator. Holding the petitioner's status as trespasser in possession of State property 'clearly borne out', the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to apply to the Collector, Hardoi for allotment of permissible State property.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14792

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2382 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Kushendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita,Aditya Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 while notice on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been accepted by Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code declaring petitioner to be a trespasser over Gaon Sabha land. Also under challenge is the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in appeal under Section 67 (5) of the Code.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

A perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that plot in question bearing Gata No. 734 having an area 1.165 hectares in the village in question has been held to be Gaon Sabha land on the ground that it was earlier declared to be surplus under ceiling proceedings and petitioner is a trespasser thereupon. The said findings recorded under Section 67 of the Code has thereafter been reiterated in appeal.

¶10

A perusal of the memorandum of appeal as well as paragraphs 6 to 10 of the writ petition makes it evident that petitioner also admits the fact that plot in question is recorded as ceiling land in the name of State in revenue records.

¶11

There is no averment by petitioner nor any admission that the said plot was ever allotted to petitioner by competent authority, being Collector of the District. The only plea taken is that petitioner being a landless person has been permitted to cultivate the said land by oral directions of the then Pradhan, if petitioner is found to be landless of the same village.

¶12

Considering the admission made by petitioner, the aspect of him being trespasser whose State property is clearly borne out

¶13

due to which no interference is required to be made in impugned orders.

¶14

However, petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the opposite party no.2 i.e. Collector, Hardoi for allotment of any State property which may be permissible in accordance with law.

¶15

With subject to said directions, the petition is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Satish

¶17

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

Kushendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 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

C/M Integrated Academy of Management and Technology Thru. Its Principal Shri Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

C/M United College of Pharmacy Prayagraj Thru. Auth. Signatory Shri Lal Mani Mishra Lko. Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Shivangi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Jameel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Sri Bhagwan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp Registration Lko and 4 Others

Suga Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others