Raj Kumar Pandey vs Addl. Commissioner Administration… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

Raj Kumar Pandey vs Addl. Commissioner Administration… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: notice issued to private respondent nos.3 and 4 (steps within one week); matter connected and to be listed along with Writ B no.359 of 2024; parties free to exchange pleadings; parties to maintain status quo and no third party right or position of the property in question to be changed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authorities could pass a mutation order based on the sale deed said to have been executed on 24.09.2002 when the sale deed was challenged in the civil court and the consolidation/U.P.C.H Act proceedings were still engaging the consolidation courts. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the proceedings saved under Section 52(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act 1953 remaining pending and the sale deed of 24.09.2002 being challenged in the civil court, it was not open for the revenue authorities to have passed the mutation order based on that sale deed.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the pendency of the U.P.C.H Act proceedings and their engagement in Writ B no.359 of 2024 despite which the mutation order was passed, it would be appropriate that both the petitioners be heard together; notice was issued to private respondent nos.3 and 4 and the matter connected with Writ B no.359 of 2024.

Key takeaways

As an interim measure, the parties shall maintain status quo and no third party right or position of the property in question shall be changed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 8), WRIT - C No. 563 of 2025, Raj Kumar Pandey v. Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and others — interim order dated 24.2.2025 (Jaspreet Singh, J.). The dispute concerns a mutation order passed by the then Tehsildar based on a sale deed said to have been executed on 24.09.2002, which sale deed is under challenge in the civil court, even though the village was de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 in 1974 and proceedings saved under Section 52(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act 1953 remained pending before the consolidation courts. Noting that the earlier consolidation-order matter is pending before this Court in Writ B no.359 of 2024 (Ram Bahadur and two Ors vs DDC Gonda and Ors) involving the petitioners' brother Ram Bahadur and private respondent no.4, the Court held it appropriate that both petitions be heard together; notice was issued to private respondent nos.3 and 4 (steps within one week); the matter was connected and ordered to be listed along with Writ B no.359 of 2024; parties were permitted to exchange pleadings; and, as an interim measure, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with no change in third party rights or position of the property in question.

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 563 of 2025

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pandey Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent.

Learned Standing counsel has filed a personal affidavit of Sri Satya Pal Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Mankapur District Gonda which is taken on record.

In paragraphs-14 and 15 it has been stated that the order in question was passed by the then Tehsildar.

It is further stated that the village was de-notified in terms of Section 52 of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 in the year 1974. He further has stated that in the affidavit that the record does not indicate that at any point of time any document was brought on record to indicate that the matter was still pending before the Consolidation Authorities.

Be that as it may, the dispute in question relates to the fact that the consolidation proceedings were already engaging the attention of the consolidation courts. Even though the village was de-notified under Section 52(1) in the year 1974 but the fact remains that in light of the proceedings which were saved in terms of Section 52(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act 1953, it was not open for the revenue authorities to have passed mutation order based on a sale deed said to have been executed on 24.09.2002 whereas the said sale deed was challenged in the civil court, apart from the fact that the proceedings under the U.P.C.H Act were also pending.

It is urged that earlier order passed in consolidation operations are engaging the attention of this Court in Writ B no.359 of 2024 (Ram Bahadur and two Ors vs DDC Gonda and Ors) wherein the petitioners along with their brother Ram Bahadur are a party including the private respondent no.4.

Considering the nature of dispute that on one hand the proceedings of the U.P.C.H Act 1953 were in progress and now

is engaging the attention of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and on the other hand despite noticing the aforesaid pendency mutation order has been passed, it would be appropriate that both the petitioners may be heard together.

Let notice be issued to private respondent nos.3 and 4.

Steps to be taken within one week.

Connect and list this matter along with Writ B no.359 of 2024.

In the meantime, the parties shall be free to exchange their pleadings.

As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status quo and no third party right or position of the property in question shall be changed.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Harshita

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