Gaya Prasad Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025WRIC/9480/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging dismissal of petitioner's revision against an ex parte Section 229-B declaration based on an alleged mortgage by predecessor Matru, who had instead executed a 1977 unregistered Will giving both sides half shares. Court found matter requiring consideration and issued notices.

What did the court decide?

Status quo over land in question; no alienation or change in nature permitted.

Gaya Prasad Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9480 of 2025

Gaya Prasad Maurya

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Shukla, Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jaikaran

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Jaikaran learned counsel has accepted notice only on behalf of respondent no.6.

¶13

Under challenge is the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the respondent no.3.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed property in question admittedly belonged to one Sri Matru. Sri Matru has executed his unregistered Will on 21.01.1977 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the private respondent nos.4 to 8 namely Ram Jas and the present petitionerGaya Prasad Maurya. It is also stated that Matru expired in the year, 1982 and thereafter upon the commencement of consolidation operation in the village in question both the petitioner as well as the predecessor in interest of the private respondent nos.4 to 8 namely Ram Jas had moved an application and got their names duly mutated each having half share in the said disputed property. It is further urged that this position was maintained by the parties, however, it appears that greed overtook the good sense of the predecessor in interest of the private respondent-Ram Jas who thereafter instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act 1950 seeking declaration of his rights solely in respect of the property in question based on an alleged mortgage said to have been executed by Matru in favour of Ram Jas.

¶15

WRIC No. 9480 of 2025

¶16

¶17

It is stated that the petitioner though was impleaded as a party but no notice was served nor he had any opportunity to know and contest the proceedings, accordingly, an exparte order was passed on the basis of the said mortgage in favour of Ram Jas. It is urged that when the petitioner became aware of the said order he assails the same in a revision which has been dismissed.

¶18

Submission is that first and foremost, the contention raised by Ram Jas for instituting a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act was absolutely contrary to his earlier stand whereby he had claimed rights on the property on the basis of a Will executed by Matru dated 21.01.1977. It is also urged that the entire proceedings which took place before the Consolidation Officer was concealed by Ram Jas while instituting the suit and on the basis of concealment and misrepresentation, the order was passed. It is further submitted that the order is not sustainable as it suffers from concealment of material facts apart from the fact that no notice was served and it was completely exparte.

¶19

Matter requires consideration.

¶20

Since, the respondent no.6 has already put in appearance, accordingly, let notice be issued to respondent nos.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.

¶21

Steps to be taken within one week.

¶22

It will be open for the learned counsel for the caveator to file counter affidavit within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner who if may so choose may file his response within two weeks thereafter.

¶23

List in the week commencing 24.11.2025.

¶24

As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status quo over the land in question. No alienation or change in the nature shall be permitted.

¶25

October 8, 2025 Harshita

¶26

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶27

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

Gaya Prasad Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haneef vs State of U.P.

Krishna Alias Kishna vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraz Alam vs State of U.P.

Raja Alias Raju vs State of U.P.

Ram Alias Rahul Mahaur vs State of U.P.

Abdul Ali vs State of U.P.