Disposed¶16

Ram Kripal v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2026WPIL/144/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL; WPIL No. 144 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; interim/listing order; concealment of material facts; dismissal with costs; supplementary affidavit; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; chak marg; plot No.130; ejectment and damages order; restoration application; illegal possession; Tehsildar Haraiya Basti; Gram Sabha; private respondent No.6; matter listed fresh 11.2.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: instruction dated 20.1.2026 of Tehsildar, Haraiya, Basti taken on record; petitioner's counsel directed to file supplementary affidavit on concealment and to address the court on imposition of costs; matter to be put up as fresh on 11.2.2026. ¶16

Ram Kripal vs State of Up and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the public interest litigation should be dismissed with costs because the petitioner concealed the material fact of the initiation of a proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against himself and the passing of the ejectment and damages order against him. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a supplementary affidavit stating why the fact regarding the initiation of the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner was not disclosed in the public interest litigation.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall address the court on the next date as to why costs should not be imposed against the petitioner for concealment of the material fact regarding the initiation of the proceeding and the passing of the ejectment and damages order against the petitioner.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.), PIL No. 144 of 2026, Ram Kripal v. State of U.P. and 5 others — interim order dated January 21, 2026. The instruction dated 20.1.2026 of the Tehsildar, Haraiya, Basti was taken on record. State counsel stated, on instructions, that a proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect of plot No.130 (recorded as chak marg) had resulted in orders of ejectment and damages against the petitioner on 2.9.2025 and against private respondent No.6 on 26.09.2025, and that restoration applications were pending against those orders; the petitioner was said to have concealed these material facts. The court directed the petitioner's counsel to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the non-disclosure and to address the court on the next date as to why costs should not be imposed for concealment; the matter was listed as fresh on 11.2.2026. No final adjudication was made.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 144 of 2026

¶3

Ram Kripal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State Of Up And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari : Counsel for Respondent(s) C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶6

Court No. - 55

¶7

HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

¶8

1.Instruction dated 20.1.2026 sent by Tehsildar, Haraiya, Basti is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for Gram Sabha.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot in question is recorded as chak-marg in the revenue record and private respondent No.6 is in illegal possession over the same. He further submitted that order for ejectment and damages has been passed against the private respondent No.6 but order has not been given effect on spot.

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha on the basis of the instruction submitted that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 was initiated against the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 in respect to plot No.130, which is recorded as chak marg and order for ejectment and damages has been passed against petitioner on 2.9.2025 as well as against private respondent No.6 on 26.09.2025. They further submitted that restoration applications have been filed against the order of ejectment and damages. They

¶12

WPIL No. 144 of 2026

¶13

¶14

further submitted that petitioner has concealed the material fact about the initiation of proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner as such instant public interest litigation should be dismissed with costs.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file supplementary affidavit stating as to why the fact regarding the initiation of proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner has not been disclosed in the instant public interest litigation. Learned cousnel for the petitioner shall address the court on the next date as to why not cost be imposed against the petitioner for concealment of the material fact regarding the initiation of proceeding and passing of the order of ejectment and damages against the petiotner.

¶16

Put up this matter as fresh on 11.2.2026.

¶17

January 21, 2026

¶18

PS*

¶19

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Kripal v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kripal v. State of Up and 5 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

Rajeev Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Anjali Pal vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kavita Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Intzar Husain vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Kedar Singh vs State of U.P. and 11 Others