State of U.P. Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others vs Savitri Sonkar and Another

Heard Shri Pritish Kumar learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

Preliminary objection has been raised by learned Senior Counsel Shri Vivek Raj Singh, assisted by Shri Shantanu Sharma that a Special Appeal arising out of the judgment passed by the writ Court on 18.12.2025 in Writ-C No. 11232 of 2025 (Savitri Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. Department of Revenue and others) is not maintainable as the order impugned before the writ Court in the writ petition was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 38 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is a State enactment and Sub Divisional Magistrate was acting as a court, therefore, the bar/exclusionary clause contained in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is attracted.

¶12

On being confronted, Shri Pritish Kumar learned Additional Advocate General along with Nishant Shukla appearing for the State contended that the order of the writ Court is absolutely without jurisdiction, and the writ petition itself was not maintainable, therefore, the Special Appeal is maintainable.

¶13

He invited our attention to the relief clause in the writ petition, which

SPLA No. 18 of 2026

2

reads as under:-

"1. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 10.02.2025 passed by OP No. (Annexure No.1) .

¶18

issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing OP No. 1 and 2 as well as the OP No. 5 to remove the construction which has been raised by them after demolishing the construction raised by the petitioner.

¶19

issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite parties to compensate the Petitioner for the illegal and unlawful demolition of her pucca construction of the weighbridge.

¶20

Award costs in favour of the Petitioner.

¶21

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."

¶22

The submission is that the main relief before the writ Court was for quashing an order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 38 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was already under challenge by the respondent petitioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue bearing Revision No. 2645 of 2025 on 19.06.2025, which was pending on the date of filing of writ petition, therefore, it was not maintainable.

¶23

The learned Single Judge, according to him, has quashed the order dated 10.02.2025 ignoring the disclosure in the writ petition that the said order dated 10.02.2025 was already under challenge in the statutory revision, which could not have been done. All other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition were not cognizable before the learned Single Judge independently, that is, but for relief no. 1 which was not maintainable before the learned Single Judge, the petition was cognizable by a Division Bench.

¶24

The submission of the counsel is that in-fact the judgment impugned does not even refer to the pendency of the revisional proceedings against

¶25

SPLA No. 18 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

the very order dated 10.02.2025.

¶28

On being confronted, Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant did not argue before the learned Single Judge about pendency of the revisional proceedings.

¶29

We are surprised at this argument. The respondent petitioner was under an obligation to disclose to the Court that the relief sought for as relief no. 1 in the writ petition was in-fact the very relief which had been sought in Revision No. 2645 of 2025 which was pending before the Board. He says that not only the revision was annexed with the petition but the factum of pendency was also disclosed. We find it to be so. Well that makes the matter worse so far as validity of the impugned judgment of the writ Court and maintainability of the writ petition is concerned we find prima facie, merit in the submission of learned counsel for appellant.

¶30

As regards non-compliance of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022, it is an issue which we can consider in this very appeal itself. If the grievance of the respondent-petitioner was with regard to demolition, which, according to her, was illegal, then she would have rushed to the writ Court i.e., before a Division Bench of this Court immediately after demolition, which took place on 21.03.2025 but surprisingly she waited for more than 9-10 months and then filed a writ petition claiming a relief which prima facie could not have been claimed.

¶31

The demolition alleged in the writ petition took place on 21.03.2025 i.e., months prior to filing of the revision. No challenge to the demolition nor any relief in respect thereof was sought by the respondent petitioner till the writ petition in question was filed in December, 2025 challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 10.02.2025 which infact, as stated, was already sub-judice in the revision.

¶32

List this case on 13.04.2026 amongst first ten cases of the day.

¶33

Till the next date of listing status quo shall be maintained by the parties in respect of the land/property in question, as, it is said that construction is being undertaken by the appellant or its agency. Cost

¶34

SPLA No. 18 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36

imposed by learned Single Judge shall remain in abeyance.

¶37

The revision, which is pending before the Board of Revenue referred here-in-above, shall not be disposed of under further orders of this Court.

¶38

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶39

March 13, 2026

¶40

Virendra

¶41

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

State of U.P. Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others v. Savitri Sonkar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others v. Savitri Sonkar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Lko. and 5 Others vs Ram Lakhan Maurya

Omar International Pvt. Ltd. Thru Director Ateeq Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. P.W.D. Lko. and 2 Others vs Ravi Prakash Jaiswal

Surendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ruksana vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment Lko and Ors.

Emaar India Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 5 Others