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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order only: status quo directed — if any pond exists on Gata No. 2490 its nature is not to be changed and the existing status quo regarding the nature of the land is to be maintained; notices to opposite parties nos. 5 and 6; S.D.M., Unchahar directed to file his own affidavit after fact-verification and to appear via video conferencing; matter listed fresh for 14.05.2025. No final adjudication on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the S.D.M., Unchahar, Raebareli could lawfully determine, by an order passed on the administrative side, that Gata No. 2490 is a pond, when consolidation Form-45 records it as bhumidhari land (with Form-41 remarks mentioning pond), particularly as this Court's judgment dated 14.10.2020 in PIL No. 16910 of 2020 did not adjudicate the pond-versus-bhumidhari question. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Interim direction: if any pond exists on Gata No. 2490, its nature shall not be changed; otherwise the status quo as existing regarding the nature of the land shall be maintained, pending further orders (matter listed fresh for 14.05.2025).

Key takeaways

Procedural directions: notice to be issued to opposite parties nos. 5 and 6; the S.D.M., Unchahar, District Raebareli to file his own affidavit after getting facts verified and to join the proceedings through video conferencing on the next date; matter to be put up fresh on 14.05.2025.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 3657 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.; order dated 18.4.2025) by khatedar Safeeq Ahmad challenging the order dated 23.06.2021 of the S.D.M., Unchahar, District Raebareli, passed in compliance of certain orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court, directing the Khatedars of Gata No. 2490 not to change the nature of the Pond. The petitioner contends that Gata No. 2490 is bhumidhari land recorded in the names of the petitioner and other khatedars since his ancestors' time; consolidation Form-45 records it as bhumidhari land, though the Form-41 remarks column mentions pond. The Court questioned how the S.D.M. could have determined on the administrative side that the land is a pond, observing that this Court's judgment dated 14.10.2020 in PIL No. 16910 of 2020 (Raju Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) did not adjudicate whether the Gata was pond land or bhumidhari land, and noting the S.D.M.'s reliance on the Khatauni of 1332 fasli, which predates chakbandi. Directions issued: notice to opposite parties nos. 5 and 6; the S.D.M. to file his own affidavit after verification of facts and join via video conferencing; interim status quo — the nature of any existing pond on the Gata not to be changed; matter listed fresh for 14.05.2025.

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3657 of 2025

Petitioner :- Safeeq Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kirti Veer Singh,Ravi Shanker Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23.06.2021 by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unchahar, District- Raiebareli in compliance of certain orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the High Court has issued a direction to the Khatedars of Gata No. 2490 not to change the nature of Pond.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in fact, Gata No. 2490 is bhumidhari land and is recorded as such in the name of the petitioner and other khatedars. It has been so recorded since the time of the petitioner's ancestors.

Issue notice to the opposite parties no. 5 and 6.

Let the S.D.M., Unchahar, District- Raebareli file his own affidavit in the matter after getting facts verified.

One of the questions which falls for consideration is that as to how the S.D.M., Unchahar, Raebareli could have determined by an order passed on the administrative side that the land in question is a pond when during consolidation in Form - 45 it has been recorded as bhumidhari land, though, in the Form - 41 in the remarks column, pond was mentioned. Would he have adjudicated such issues on the administrative side in the manner in which he has done, especially when this Court while passing a judgment dated 14.10.2020 in PIL No. 16910 of 2020; Raju Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. did not adjudicate on the issue as to whether the aforesaid Gata No. 2490 was pond land or bhumidhari land and admittedly, in the Form - 45 the land is mentioned as bhumidhari land and as the S.D.M., Unchahar, Raebareli has referred to Khatauni pertaining to 1332 fasli as the Khatauni is in existence prior to 'chakbandi', then, obviously the 'chakbandi' must have also taken place several years

ago.

Let the S.D.M., Unchahar, Raegareli join these proceedings through video conferencing on the next date.

List/ put up on 14.05.2025 as fresh.

In the meantime, if there is any pond existing on Gata No. 2490, then, its nature would not be changed otherwise the status quo as is existing regarding the nature of the land would be maintained.

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 R.K.P.

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