Shri Kashi Nath vs State of U.P. and 56 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 1313 of 2026

Shri Kashi Nath

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 56 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Ajay Kumar, Bhola Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai Court No. - 54

¶7

HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai and Sri Prajyot Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.6/1 and Sri Swatantra Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

¶9

Stamp Reporter has reported latches of 16674 days in filing the instant writ petition.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the latches as reported by the Stamp Reporter should be condoned. He submitted that vendor of the petitioner has filed a writ petition in the year 1980 which has been withdrawn by legal heirs in illegal manner in the year 2016. He submitted that recall/review/impleadment application filed by the parties have been rejected. He submitted that the Apex Court against the order rejecting the review application, has observed that petitioner/Kashi Nath can initiate proper proceeding including filing of the writ petition for adjudication of his right in respect to the plot in question, accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the right of co-tenancy given to Sadho was withdrawn. He submitted that dispute involved in Writ B No.4751 of 1980 should be adjudicated on merit and petitioner's right will depend upon the adjudication of Writ B No.4751 of 1980. He also submitted that it is

¶11

WRIB No. 1313 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

correct that the legal heirs of Sadho has withdrawn their writ petition but in view of the judgment of High Court and the Apex Court, petitioner can challenge the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by way of writ petition. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases reported in (1958) AIR (S) 199, Mst. Kirpal Kau vs. Bachan Singh and Others and (1963) AIR Madras 300, Annammal and Others vs. Chellakutti in order to demonstrate that if the vendor has withdrawn his claim then the vendee can initiate proper proceeding in accordance with law.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.6/1 submitted that in view of latches reported by the Stamp Reporter, the instant writ petition cannot be entertained. It is also submitted that writ petition filed in the year 1980 was withdrawn by the petitioner of the writ petition, as such, the petitioner cannot challenge the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the year 1980. He also submitted that petitioner can take recourse for withdrawal of his consideration which was advanced to by the petitioner to his vendor rather challenging the order passed by the consolidation court regarding co-tenancy. It is also submitted that the order passed by this Court on the review application has not been annexed as such, writ petition cannot be entertained coupled with the fact that necessary parties have also not been impleaded. He also submitted that dispute involved in the Writ B No.4751 of 1980 was in respect to two villages and petitioner, who is one of the sons of Bechan, has set up his claim in respect to one plot situated in one village only, as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. He submitted that the name of the petitioner was expunged in the proceeding under Section 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules in the year 2016 but the petitioner has not taken any steps against the order, expunging his name, as such, instant writ petition filed in the year 2026, cannot be entertained.

¶15

In reply, counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is claiming right in respect to the sale deed which was executed by Sadho in favour of the petitioner's father.

¶16

WRIB No. 1313 of 2026

¶17

3

¶18