Disposed¶18

Ramraj v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WPIL/3041/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL mandamus; revenue record correction; gata no. 46; Plot No. 46Ga; pond; encroachment removal; recorded tenure holders; Registrar Kanoongo; Deputy District Magistrate Phoolpur; Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Phoolpur Prayagraj letter 17.02.2020; suspicion not basis for eviction; alternative remedy; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar J.; 2026

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for correction of the revenue records; any such application filed before respondent no. 3 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. ¶18

Ramraj Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondent authority to correct the entry of Gata No. 46, area 4 Bigha 8 Biswa, as a pond by deleting the entry of the private respondents. +3 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer, based on suspicion in the mind of the Deputy District Magistrate, cannot be the basis for initiating proceedings for eviction of respondent nos. 5 and 6, who are recorded tenure holders of the plot in question.

¶16

Key takeaways

The petitioner has a remedy of moving an application before the appropriate authority for correction of records, if any error or omission is found in the revenue records.ratio¶17
No interference is warranted at this stage; the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for correction of the revenue records, and any application filed before respondent no. 3 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.), PIL No. 3041 of 2025, decided May 5, 2026 - Ramraj v. State of U.P. and 6 Others. Petition under Article-adjacent PIL jurisdiction seeking mandamus to (i) correct the entry of Gata No. 46 (area 4 Bigha, 8 Biswa) as a pond by deleting the entry of the private respondents, (ii) remove encroachment upon the said pond, and (iii) act on the letter of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj dated 17.02.2020; the Deputy District Magistrate had written to the Registrar Kanoongo that entries in respect of Plot No. 46Ga appeared fictitious. Held: a prayer founded on mere suspicion in the mind of the Deputy District Magistrate cannot be the basis for initiating eviction proceedings against respondent nos. 5 and 6, who are recorded tenure holders; the petitioner's remedy is to move an application before the appropriate authority for correction of revenue records. Petition disposed of with liberty; any application filed before respondent no. 3 to be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3041 of 2025

¶3

Ramraj

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Brajesh Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Azad Rai, C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 55

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Azad Rai for the respondent no. 7.

¶9

The present petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶10

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action in order to correct the entry of Gata No.46 area 4 Bigha, 8 Biswa as a pond by deleting the entry of private respondent and others.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to take appropriate action to remove the encroachment upon the pond vide gata no.46, within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to take appropriate action on the letter issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj dated 17.02.2020."

¶13

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy District Magistrate, Phoolpur, Prayagraj has issued a letter to the Registrar Kanoongo stating that the entries in respect of Plot No. 46Ga appears to be fictitious, therefore, a direction may be issued to remove the illegal occupation from the said land.

¶14

WPIL No. 3041 of 2025

¶15

¶16

The said prayer of the petitioner on the basis of some suspicion in the mind of Deputy District Magistrate cannot be the basis for initiating proceeding for eviction of the respondent no. 5 and 6 who are recorded tenure holders of the plot in question.

¶17

The petitioner has a remedy of moving an application before the appropriate authority for correction of records, if any error or omission is find in the revenue records.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted in the matter, at this stage. However, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for correction of the revenue records. If any such application is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3, it shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

May 5, 2026

Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramraj v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramraj v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Sanjeev vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gram Sabha Mathiya Gosai, Tehsil-Harriya, through Its Village Rpadhan Ram Narayan Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Jaipal Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sohan Ram Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kulliyatul Banatir Razviya Educational and Welfare Society vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mithilesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others