Balveer Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Balveer Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of the operation of the impugned orders in so far as the recovery of penalty is concerned; counter affidavit by the State within four weeks; rejoinder, if chosen, within two weeks thereafter; matter listed in the week commencing 24th November, 2025. Final adjudication pending.

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of Rs. 42,300/- imposed on the petitioner in the Section 67 proceedings concerning Plot Nos. 223 and 239 was without basis, given his defence of non-possession said to have been admitted by the Lekhpal in evidence.

Court's answer

As an interim measure, the operation of the impugned orders is stayed in so far as the recovery of penalty is concerned.

Ratio / Principle

State directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks with advance copy to petitioner's counsel; petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter; matter to be listed in the week commencing 24th November, 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 6 | Writ-C No. 9493 of 2025 | Order dated October 9, 2025 | Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. — Balveer Singh v. State of U.P. (Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko.) and 3 others. Interim order in a writ petition challenging two orders dated 10.06.2025 passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the appellate order dated 11.08.2025 under Section 67(5) of that Code. Proceedings had been initiated under Section 67(1) in relation to Plot Nos. 223 and 239; the petitioner took the specific defence that he was neither in possession of the plots nor had anything to do with them, urging that the Lekhpal admitted in evidence his non-possession, yet penalty of Rs. 42,300/- was imposed upon him without any basis. Court found the matter requiring consideration: State to file counter affidavit within four weeks (advance copy to petitioner's counsel), rejoinder permitted within two weeks thereafter; matter listed in the week commencing 24th November, 2025. INTERIM RELIEF: operation of the impugned orders stayed in so far as recovery of the penalty is concerned.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 9493 of 2025

Balveer Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 3 Others	Deptt. Of Revenue, .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma, Sumer Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

Under challenge are the two orders dated 10.06.2025 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the appellate order dated 11.08.2025 under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in relation to Plot No. 223 and 239.

A specific defence was taken by the petitioner that he was neither in possession nor he had anything to do with the said plots.

It is urged that even the Lekhpa in the evidence admitted the fact that the petitioner was not in possession yet penalty of Rs. 42,300/- has been imposed upon the petitioner without any basis.

The matter requires consideration.

The State is directed to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who

WRIC No. 9493 of 2025

2

if may so chose, may file his rejoinder affidavit within a period of two weeks thereafter.

List this matter in the week commencing 24th November, 2025.

As an interim measure, it is provided that the operation of the impugned orders in so far as the recovery of penalty is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

October 9, 2025

Asheesh

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