Disposed¶10

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2025WRIC/6016/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gata No.129 sa; village Kajidevar; pargana, tehsil and district Gonda; 'naveen parti'; chak road; dispossession; demolition of dwelling; Section 67-A U.P. Revenue Code 2006; Section 26 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; pending application Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.; interim directions; writ petition WRIT - C No. 6016 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order dated 24.6.2025; listed 04.7.2025 top ten cases.

What did the court decide?

No final relief granted; interim directions issued and the case listed on 04.7.2025 in top ten cases. Respondent's counsel was permitted to seek instructions; the Court sought information on pendency of the Section 67-A proceedings and on any Section 26 proceeding against the petitioner. ¶10

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be restrained from being dispossessed from Gata No.129 sa, village Kajidevar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda, while his application under Section 67-A, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 remains pending. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Interim direction: counsel for the respondents was directed to inform the Court of the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 67-A, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and also whether any proceeding under Section 26 of the said Code has been undertaken with regard to the petitioner.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (WRIT - C No. 6016 of 2025, decided 24.6.2025, Coram: Alok Mathur and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, JJ.). Petitioner alleged possession of Gata No.129 sa at village Kajidevar, pargana, tehsil and district Gonda, recorded as 'naveen parti', and that his application under Section 67-A, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (titled Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.) was pending, during which period the respondents allegedly demolished his dwelling on the land. He sought restraint against dispossession and a direction to decide the said application. Counsel for the respondents stated the land is a chak road on which benefit of Section 67-A would not be admissible, and sought to seek instructions. The Court directed counsel for the respondents to inform it of the pendency of the petitioner's Section 67-A proceedings and whether any proceeding under Section 26, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had been undertaken against him, and listed the case on 04.7.2025 in top ten cases. No final view on merits was expressed.

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6016 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikram Dutt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶3

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Vikram Dutt Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4 and Shri Tushar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Pankaj Gupta on behalf of respondent no.5.

¶5

It has been alleged by the petitioner that he is in possession of Gata No.129 sa situated at village Kajidevar, pargana, tehsil and district Gonda which according to the petitioner is recorded as 'naveen parti'.

¶6

It has been submitted that the petitioner has moved an application under section 67 A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 titled as [Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.] with regard to the aforesaid land and the proceedings in the said regard are still pending consideration and it is during the said period that the respondents have proceeded to demolish the dwelling of the petitioner on the said land.

¶7

Petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking a direction to the opposite parties not to dispossess the petitioner from the land Gata No.129 sa, situated at village - Kajidevar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda and to decide the said application under section 67 A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶8

Counsel for the respondent at this stage submits that he may be permitted to seek instructions and states that the land is a chak road on which benefit of Section 67 A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would not be admissible.

¶9

In any view of the matter let learned counsel for the respondent inform this Court with regard to the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 67 A and also inform this Court as to whether any proceeding under section 26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been undertaken with regard to the petitioner.

¶10

List this case on 04.7.2025 in top ten cases.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.6.2025 mks

¶12

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶13

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

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishanpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Lko.and 4 Others

U.P. Technical Education Service Association, Lko. Thru. Its General Secy. Dr Prashant Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tech. Edu. Lko and 2 Others

Maksood Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

The Biotech Park, Lucknow Thru. Executive Officer and Another vs M/S Lifecare Innovation Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Mr. Jai Prakash Mall

The Biotech Park Lucknow Thru. Executive Officer and Another vs M/S Chandan Healthcare Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Mr. Rajeev Kumar Nain

Sanjay Asthana vs Union of India Thru.Its General Manager, Baroda House North Eastern Railway,New Delhi and 2 Others