Anil and 6 Others vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and 8 Others.

Let the petitioners implead the then Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow, the then Revenue Inspector/Kannungo, Jhehta, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow and the then Lekhpal, Village Daud Nagar, Lucknow as opposite parties during course of the day and serve notice of the petition upon the Standing Counsel separately.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

On 02.07.2025, we had passed the following order:-

¶12

"Heard.

¶13

By means of this petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to remove the Medbandi from the Gata No. 268 situated at Village Daud Nagar, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Lucknow, which is done on 25.06.2025, and restore the possession of the petitioners. They have further prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 & 2 to initiate the criminal proceedings against the responsible authorities who demolished the boundaries of petitioners by bulldozer instead the status quo order passed by the opposite party No. 1. They have also prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to 4 to restrain the opposite party No. 7 to 9 to not construct over the land in question.

¶14

Let the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 join these proceedings through video conferencing on 8th of July, 2025 and explain as to whether in spite of order dated 15.05.2025 passed in appeal bearing No. 2015 of 2015 under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, demarcation order dated 17.06.2025 impugned in the appeal was given effect and boundary marks were erected on the spot. If so, why? They shall also explain as to whether before executing the

¶15

said demarcation order dated 17.06.2025 any attempt was made by them to ascertain as to whether any appeal has been filed against it and if so, whether there is any interim order therein? If not, why, specially as it is claimed that the interim orders dated 15.05.2025 and 17.06.2025 passed in appeal were uploaded on the relevant portal.

¶16

List this case on 08.07.2025 as fresh."

¶17

We have perused the affidavit of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow in response to our order dated 02.07.2025, which is taken on record. We are not at all satisfied with the said response. The petitioners' Counsel says that on 24.06.2025 itself, the petitioners had whatsapped the order passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow on the mobile phone of Shrankhla Mishra, Lekhpal Village Daud Nagar, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Lucknow in the evening at 8:21 P.M. whose mobile number is 7007617915 and on the same date i.e. 24.06.2025 itself at 8:19 P.M., he had communicated the said interim order of the appellate court/authority to Shri Satya Prakash Shukla, Revenue Inspector/Kannungo on his mobile number 9415023434. Likewise, on the same date at 11:42 P.M. he had communicated the said order to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow, whose mobile number is 9454416490. On the next date i.e. 25.06.2025 before the demarcation/demolition exercise was undertaken between 1:00 P.M.-3:00 P.M., the orders of the appellate court were communicated to the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow on his mobile number 9454416505 at 9:07 A.M. They have also placed before us certain photographs. In fact, his assertion is that the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow read the appellate order but did not take cognizance of it. Let all these documents be brought on record by the petitioners as we are not at all satisfied with the explanation offered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow and this is a matter prima facie involving flagrant violation of the Rule of Law and the rights and liberties of the petitioners. The least that was required was for the revenue authorities to find out from the petitioners or the other private opposite parties as to whether any appeal had been preferred, if so, what was its number and then to find out as to whether there was any interim order assuming that the factum of interim order was not known to them or they were not apprised of the same, although, the petitioners' Counsel says that they were very well aware of it and had been apprised about the same but acted malafide and illegally.

¶18

We have interacted with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh through video conference, who says that he will get an inquiry conducted into

¶19

the matter to ascertain the truth as the demarcation exercise took place in the presence of Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow etc., and he was not present on the spot.

¶20

In view of the above, the District Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to get an inquiry conducted into the matter by an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate and submit his report by the next date. On the next date, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow, the then Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow, the then Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow, the then Revenue Inspector/Kannungo and the then Lekhpal concerned shall be present in Court.

¶21

List this case on 14.07.2025.

¶22

The copy of the documents placed before the Court by the petitioners' Counsel shall be provided to Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel today itself.

¶23

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the District Magistrate, Lucknow by Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for compliance as also to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

¶24

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 -Piyush-

¶25

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

Anil and 6 Others v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and 8 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil and 6 Others v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and 8 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

Punjab National Bank Thru. Constituted Attorney Mr. Divyendu Gaurav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. and 14 Others

Ranjeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Smt. Meena Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Kamlesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Riyasat Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

C/M Waqf NO.34 Ambedkar Nagar Thru. President Maulana Mohammad Qasim Alias Mohammad Qasim Ashrafi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare and Waqf Lko. and 4 Others