Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Faizabad and 9 Others

Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, along with Sri Prashant Vikram Singh, learned counsels for the appellant; Sri Rupesh Kumar Kasaudan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 9; and Sri Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, are present.

¶10

By means of the present appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ayodhya in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2015, Computerised Case No. 527 of 2015, CNR No. UPFZ01-002191-2015 "Kashi Naresh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others".

¶11

It is the case of the appellant that the land in dispute bearing Nazul Plot No. 851 and 852 M, having Chak No. 11 area 3310 square feet, situated at Angoori Bagh, Faizabad/ Ayodhya was recorded as Nazul Land and allotted to one Chunni Lal as Krishi Patta by the State authorities namely respondent No. 1 and 2, on 22.01.1957 for a period of seven years but freehold deed was executed on 04.04.2003 in favour of the appellant which is registered in the Office of Nazul Department, Faizabad/ Ayodhya in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1886 at Page Nos. 63 to 84, at Serial No. 1942.

¶12

SAPL No. 164 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the execution of the freehold deed dated 04.04.2003, the rights and title was conferred upon the appellant namely Ashok Kumar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since the claim of the private opposite party is based on the lease which has already expired and no renewal was granted by the concerned authorities, though the rights, if any, entailed to them have already extinguished. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the basis of the freehold deed dated 04.04.2003, the name of the appellant has been entered in the revenue records vide order dated 10.09.2003.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Appellate Court, while passing the impugned orders, did not consider the fact that the order for cancellation of freehold deed, if any, is arbitrary and without application of judicial mind.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator/respondent No. 9 prays for and is granted a week's time to file objection.

¶17

Looking to the controversy involved in the matter, the Court directs the learned counsel for the appellant to serve a copy of this appeal to Sri Gopal Krishna Pathak, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 & 2, with a direction to him to obtain necessary instructions from the State authorities/respondents, by the next date.

¶18

List this case on 27.05.2026, as fresh.

¶19

Sri Prashant Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant undertakes that he shall serve a copy of the memo of appeal, along with all the annexures, to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, during course of the day.

¶20

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶21

May 18, 2026

¶22

Manoj K.

¶23

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

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Faizabad and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Faizabad and 9 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

Similar cases

Jayhind Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Pushpendra vs State of Up and Another

Brijnandan Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Dr. Anjali Mehta @ Anjali Mehta Phull vs Dr. Vikram Mehta

Devika Gold Homz Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Sign. Anmol Yadav vs Dr. Ratnakar Gedam

Devika Gold Homz Private Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Anmol Yadav vs Dr. Ratnakar Gedam