Disposed¶17

Jitendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WPIL/1194/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL disposed with liberty to pursue statutory remedy under Ss. 104/105 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; sale deed by Scheduled Caste seller without District Collector's permission; declaration of sale deed void; vesting of land in Gaon Sabha; arazi no. 254, Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi; alternative remedy; privately motivated PIL; Keshvendra, Case No. 4 of 2024, Deputy District Magistrate Jhansi; writ of mandamus; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar, J.; decision dated May 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. ¶17

Jitendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the sale deed(s) in respect of arazi no. 254, Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi, executed by persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste without permission of the District Collector in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 11, are void ab initio and the land should vest in the Gaon Sabha. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 contains a specific provision for declaring a sale deed executed by a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste without requisite permission to be void, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under those provisions.

¶17

Key takeaways

The present PIL for declaration of the sale deeds to be void and vesting of the land in the State appears to be privately motivated rather than a petition in public interest.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Arun Kumar, J.), May 6, 2026, in PIL No. 1194 of 2026 (Jitendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others): The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to vest arazi no. 254, Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi in the Gaon Sabha, alleging that respondent nos. 6 to 11, persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste, purchased the land from Scheduled Caste owners without the District Collector's permission. The Court noted that under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 there exists a specific provision for declaring such a sale deed void, and that one villager (Keshvendra) had already filed Case No. 4 of 2024 before the Deputy District Magistrate, Jhansi for cancellation of a sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8. Observing that the PIL appeared privately motivated rather than a petition in public interest, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 104/105 of the Code, 2006.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1194 of 2026

¶3

Jitendra Singh Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 10 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajiv Kumar Shukla, Shivang Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Deepak Gaur

¶6

Court No. - 55

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

¶9

The present petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶10

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to ensure that the land of arazi no. 254, Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi may be vested in the Gaon Sabha as purchasers (i.e. respondent to.6 to 11) of the land of arazi no. 254, situated at Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi are the persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste has purchased the land of the Scheduled Caste without permission of the District Collector."

¶11

The averment made in the writ petition and the relief claimed in it is in fact that the sale deed executed in respect of plot no.254 by persons belonging to scheduled caste category without obtaining requisite permission in favour of respondent nos.6 to 11 be held to be void ab initio

¶12

Perusal of paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition shows that one villager Keshvendra has filed Case No.4 of 2024 before the Deputy District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos.6 to 8, therefore, the petitioner could have also approached the

¶13

WPIL No. 1194 of 2026

¶14

¶15

appropriate authority under the aforesaid provisions of law to get the other sale deed declared void.

¶16

The present PIL for declaration of sale deeds to be void and land to be vested in the State appears to be privately motivated, rather than a petition in public interest.

¶17

As under Section 104/105 of the Code, 2006, there exists specific provision for declaration of sale deed executed by person belonging to scheduled caste category without obtaining requisite permission to be void, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the aforesaid provisions of law.

¶18

(Arun Kumar,J.)

¶19

May 6, 2026 Ashok Kr.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 10 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Data Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Panelal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivbabu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Parasuram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others