Disposed¶14

Shiv Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2026WPIL/200/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; PIL No. 200 of 2026; Shiv Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others; order dated 29.01.2026; mutation of land acquired in 1965 for drain construction; revenue records; irrigation department; 60-year delay in mutation; Learned Standing Counsel directed to obtain instructions; interim directions; matter listed 17.03.2026 as fresh.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction to the Learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from the respective Authorities involved in ensuring that the mutation takes place; needful to be done before the next date; matter listed on 17.03.2026 as fresh. ¶14

Shiv Sharan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether mutation of the land acquired in 1965 for construction of a drain should be effected in the revenue records in favour of the State/irrigation department, given that mutation continues to remain in the names of the original landholders over 60 years after acquisition.

¶13

Court's answer

The Court observed that the acquisition took place over 60 years back and the claim that proceedings for mutation are still pending cannot be countenanced; this is a prima facie observation in an interim order, the matter not being finally decided.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions in the matter from the respective Authorities involved in ensuring that the mutation takes place; needful to be done before the next date and the matter listed on 17.03.2026 as fresh.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order of the Division Bench (Arun Bhansali, CJ. and Kshitij Shailendra, J.), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in PIL No. 200 of 2026 (Shiv Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others), dated January 29, 2026. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that land acquired in 1965 for construction of a drain, which has since been constructed, continues to stand mutated in the revenue records in the names of the original landholders, and that communications dated 17.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 (Annexure Nos. 3 and 4) indicate that proceedings for entering the name in the irrigation department/State are still continuing. The Court observed that the acquisition took place over 60 years back and the claim that mutation proceedings are still pending cannot be countenanced. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions from the respective Authorities involved in ensuring that the mutation takes place, with needful to be done before the next date; the matter was listed fresh on 17.03.2026. No final determination; no statute or precedent cited.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 200 of 2026

¶3

Shiv Sharan Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and 4 others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Satyendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Seema Agarwal (S.C.)

¶9

Chief Justice's Court

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶11

It is, inter alia , submitted by counsel for the petitioner that though admittedly the land was acquired for construction of drain in the year 1965 and the drain has been constructed, in the revenue record, the mutation continues to remain in the name of the land holders, whose land was acquired way back in the year 1965.

¶12

Submissions have been made that the said aspect is fortified from the material placed on record including communications dated 17.09.2025 and 12.09.2025, Annexure Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, wherein indications have been made that the proceedings for entering the name in the irrigation department/State is continuing.

¶13

The acquisition took place over 60 years back and to claim that the proceedings for mutation is still pending cannot be countenanced.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instructions in the matter from the respective Authorities, who are involved in ensuring that the mutation takes place.

¶15

Needful may be done before the next date.

¶16

List on 17.03.2026, as fresh.

¶17

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶18

January 29, 2026 Mukesh Pal/Jyotsana

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Shankar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Modern Garden Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reena Kumari vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lalchand and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Pramendra Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Zaheer Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others