Petitioners sought mandamus for inquiry into alleged forged permission and revenue records. Due to absence of petitioner's counsel, the court noted the matter had been passed over previously and listed it for the next week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 8980 of 2025
Ashwajeet Singh Bhante Alias Udham Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 14 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Yadava, Abhaya Pandey, Aditya Singh, Deepa Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
1. Fresh list has been taken up, the counsel for the petitioners is not present. Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate who has filed his Power on behalf of the Respondent nos.9 and 10. He says that the matter has been passed over earlier on two occasions because of absence of the petitioners' counsel.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following prayers:-
" I. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, specially opposite party No. 2 institute an enquiry regarding forged permission order dated 17-052002 as contained in Annexure NO.8 and also regarding fraud played by the bank Manager in mortgaging the disputed land in question.
II. Issue a writ order direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite party No. 2 to 4 to inquire in to the matter regarding forged entries in the revenue records, while the father of petitioner was won the mutation case on 30-07-1999 and opposite party NO. 12, 13 and 14 were lost their case.
III. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, specially opposite party No. 2 to
WRIC No. 8980 of 2025
2
take a decision upon the representation dated 10.02.2025 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
IV. to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
V. Allow the writ petition with cost."
3. It has been submitted that the petitioners have sought a Mandamus for an inquiry to be instituted regarding alleged forged permission dated 17.05.2002 and fraud being played by the Bank Manager in mortgaging the disputed land and for a direction to the Opposite party nos.2 to 4 to inquire into the matter regarding forged entry in the Revenue Records whereas the father of the petitioners had won mutation case on 30.07.1999 and the Opposite party nos.12, 13 and 14 had lost their case. Further prayer for Mandamus is issued to the Respondents to take a decision on the Representation dated 10.02.2025 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent nos.9 and 10 that the writ petition suffers from mis-representation and concealment of material facts.
5. List this matter in the next week showing the name of Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate as appearing on behalf of the Respondent nos.9 and 10 in the cause list.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)
September 18, 2025 N.PAL
Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Ashwajeet Singh Bhante Alias Udham Singh
Another
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko.
And 14 Others
Sangeeta Chandra
Manjive Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
