Smt. Kunna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8848 of 2025

Smt. Kunna

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt., Lko. And Others	Prin. Secy. Revenue	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Neha Mishra, Aman Sinha	Srivastava, Srijan
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta
Court No.- 30

¶7

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶8

This court, after hearing parties counsels had passed an order on 22nd September 2025 in the following terms:-

¶9

"1. Heard Shri Chirojit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶10

2. After hearing the matter in detail, this Court had passed an order on 15.09.2025 in the following terms:-

¶11

"1. Heard Shri Chirojit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4, Shri Vikram Dutt Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6.

¶12

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging therein the report dated 01.08.2025, submitted by the revenue authorities and forwarded by the Tehsildar Kaiserganj, Bahraich to the higher authorities pursuant to a complaint given by Respondent No. 6 on the I.G.R.S portal.

¶13

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that on the complaint made by Respondent No. 6 on I.G.R.S portal on administrative side, the tehsil authorities have made demarcation of the land of Gata No. 387 of Village Chahlar, ParganaHisampur, Tehsil Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, whereas the said demarcation can only be done by drawing adequate proceedings under the U.P Revenue Code, 2006.

¶14

WRIC No. 8848 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

4. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given notice prior to making such demarcation on spot, though he is a co-tenure holder of Gata No. 387.

¶17

5. I have gone through the contents of the impugned report dated 01.08.2025 and it is difficult for this Court to comprehend, as to how the authorities on administrative side, are doing the work which is only permissible on judicial side under the different provisions of the U.P Revenue Code 2006.

¶18

6. This court is also of the view that the authorities, while initiating proceedings under Section 24 and 25 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of the land, are under obligation to issue notice to all the adjacent tenure holders and only thereafter, demarcation can be carried out but in the instant case, the authorities, on receiving a complaint on administrative side, had straightaway carried out measurement proceedings, which is not permissible.

¶19

7. List this case in the next week, as fresh.

¶20

8. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to take categorical instructions from the Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, Bahraich, as to under what authority of law, he had carried out the measurement proceedings on the complaint made by Respondent No. 6, that too on administrative side."

¶21

3. Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has produced a letter dated 20.09.2025 written by Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, whereby he has sought time for submitting detailed report in the matter.

¶22

4. This Court finds that this is a matter where without initiating proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Tehsildar, Kasierganj had carried out measurement proceedings on the spot.

¶23

5. On the last date, this Court passed a detailed order and required the Tehsildar, Kaiserganj to give instructions to learned Standing Counsel, as to without initiating proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, how the revenue authorities had demarcated the land of Gata No. 387 but Tehsildar has not given any instructions in that regard.

¶24

6. Let this matter be listed on 24.09.2025.

¶25

WRIC No. 8848 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

7. The Tehsildar, Kaiserganj shall remain present before this Court along with entire record of the matter. "

¶28

In compliance of the order dated 22nd September 2025, Ms. Meena Gaur, Tehsildar, Kaiserganj is present before this court and has submitted that the measurement proceedings, subject matter of this writ petition, were carried out by her predecessor who had been transferred. She also submits that as per law, the demarcation proceedings could not have been carried out without instituting proper proceedings under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. She further submits that the demarcation proceedings carried out on 1st August 2025 shall not be executed on the spot and if any application for initiating proceedings for demarcation of land of Gata No. 387 is filed, the same shall be dealt with and decided in accordance with the provisions made under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid categorical statement given by the Tahsildar Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶32

September 24, 2025

¶33

Anurag

¶34

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

Smt. Kunna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kunna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 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

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 4 Others

Constable Driver (Cdr) , PNO-160470271, Bhuvnesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Siddharth Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Saryu Prasad @ Sarju Prasad @ Tilthoo Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Juvenile a Thru. His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Rekha Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.