Akhtar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Akhtar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The requested mandamus was not directly granted; instead the Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the area Lekhpal, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi, within ten days, with documents relating to the sale by Pachchu s/o Shankar to Peer Ali and on whether Collector's permission was taken or was required under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; thereafter the Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned shall pass an appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should issue commanding the opposite parties, especially opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 (Tehsildar, Tiloi / area Lekhpal), not to harass the petitioner or press him to partition Gata No.775 acquired through his father's unregistered will. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit, within ten days, a reply to the area Lekhpal, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi, along with documents relating to the sale made in favour of Peer Ali by Pachchu s/o Shankar and establishing whether any permission was taken from the Collector or whether any such permission was actually required under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 at the time of making such sale deed.

Key takeaways

An appropriate order is to be passed by the Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned only after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned, and only thereafter.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 8656 of 2025 (Allahabad HC, Lucknow Bench; Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra & Brij Raj Singh, JJ.; decided September 11, 2025) - Akhtar Ali v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow & 4 Others. The petitioner's name had been recorded in the revenue records for Gata No.775/0.111 hectare in place of his late father Peer Ali (d. 2019) on an application under Section 38(6), U.P. Revenue Code, based on an unregistered will deed executed by Peer Ali solely in the petitioner's favour. On complaints by the petitioner's brothers (including Saddam Hussain), the Tehsildar, Tiloi and area Lekhpal were pressurising the petitioner to partition Gata No.775. Instructions of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi produced by learned Standing Counsel disclosed a Revenue Inspector, Fursatganj report that the vendor Pachchu s/o Shankar, a Scheduled Caste ('paasi') person, had sold 0.011 hectare to Peer Ali without prior permission of the Collector, engaging the question under Section 98, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; counsel also observed from the sale deed extract that the purchaser was of 'Fakir' caste with no mention of permission. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a reply with sale documents to the area Lekhpal within ten days on whether Collector's permission was taken or required, whereafter the Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass an appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 8656 of 2025

Akhtar Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others

o. n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Chandra Bhanu Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 2

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following main prayer:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties especially opposite party No. 4 & 5 not to harass the petitioner in any manner."

It is the case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner namely Peer Ali has executed unregistered will deed in favour of petitioner only in respect of land in question bearing Gata No.775/0.111 hectare and he had divided his other moveable and immoveable properties amongst all his other children equally. A copy of unregistered will deed is filed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. When the petitioner's father died in 2019, the petitioner moved an application under Section 38(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code and name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records in respect of Gata No.775 in place of Peer Ali. However, on complaint being made by two brothers of the petitioner, the Tehsildar, Tiloi, District Amethi along with area Lekhpal are now pressurizing the petitioner to partition his land bearing Gata No.775 and give equal share to his brothers in the said property. Hence this writ petition has been filed

WRIC No. 8656 of 2025

2

with the aforesaid prayer.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court instructions sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, District Amethi, wherein it has been stated that on complaint being made by the petitioner's brother namely Saddam Hussain, an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Fursatganj and he has submitted a report that Gata No.775/0.090 hectare is situated in Village Odari, Pargana, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi. The father of the petitioner Peer Ali had bought 0.011 hectare land out of 0.090 hectare of Gata No.755 from one Pachchu s/o Shankar and it was also found that Pachchu s/o Shankar was Scheduled Caste person, who had not taken prior permission of the Collector before selling the said land and only to find out whether such prior permission was taken or not, the petitioner was contacted by the area Lekhpal. The petitioner has not given any satisfactory reply to the query made.

Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that from page 28 of the writ petition, which is an extract of sale deed made by Pachchu s/o Shankar in favour Peer Ali, father of the petitioner, it is evident that the seller Pachchu s/o Shankar was belonging to 'paasi' caste and the petitioner's father was 'Fakir'. There is no mention of any permission having being sought. It is also not come out whether 'Fakir' was also recognize as scheduled caste and there was no evidence of taking such permission.

The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit reply to the area Lekhpal, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi along with documents relating to sale being made in favour of Peer Ali by Pachchu s/o Shankar and whether any permission was taken from the Collector or whether any such permission was actually required under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 at the time of making such sale deed within ten days from today and an appropriate order shall be passed after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned by the Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned only thereafter.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

September 11, 2025 Anupam S/-

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench