Disposed¶18

Raja v. State of U.P. and 23 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026WRIB/1579/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against interim order; Board of Revenue U.P.; Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 demarcation of Plot No.1372/2; Revision No.355 of 2026; alternate remedy of vacation of interim order; objection to maintainability of revision; four-month disposal direction; Saharanpur; Behat; spot map confirmation by Revenue Inspector.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 (Board of Revenue, U.P.) to decide pending Revision No.355 of 2026 after considering the petitioner's objection regarding its maintainability, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. ¶18

Raja vs State of U.P. and 23 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the validity of the interim order dated 6.2.2026, by which the Board of Revenue entertained the revision and stayed the orders below, is maintainable. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The writ petition challenging the validity of the interim order dated 6.2.2026 is not maintainable, and no purpose would be served in issuing notices to the contesting respondents.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Against the interim order, the petitioner's remedy is to move an application for vacation of the interim order and to object regarding the maintainability of the revision itself.

¶17

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner has already appeared in Revision No.355 of 2026, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the pending revision after considering the petitioner's objection regarding its maintainability, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within four months from presentation of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition challenging an interim order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow dated 6.2.2026, whereby a revision filed by respondent no.6 was entertained and the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division dated 12.1.2026 and the Deputy District Magistrate dated 30.7.2025 were stayed, arising out of demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 concerning Plot No.1372/2. Held: the petition against the interim order was not maintainable; the petitioner's remedy was to seek vacation of the interim order and to object to the maintainability of the revision. Since the petitioner had already appeared in Revision No.355 of 2026, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision after considering the maintainability objection, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within four months.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 1579 of 2026

Raja

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 23 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ajaj Ahmad, Akhtar Ali : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶9

Court No. - 55

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Akhtar Ali learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed challenge the order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, the respondent no.2, dated 6.2.2026, by which the revision filed by respondent no.6 has been entertained and the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur and the Deputy District Magistrate, dated 12.1.2026 and 30.7.2025, respectively, have been stayed.

¶13

The present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In the case registered on the application of the petitioner the Plot No.1372/2 has been sought to be demarcated. The respondent no.6 aggrieved by the order of the Deputy District Magistrate (Judicial), Behat, District Saharanpur dated 30.7.2025 directing the confirmation of the spot map prepared by the Revenue Inspector, had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed by the order dated 12.1.2026. The revision filed by respondent no.6 has been entertained by the order dated 6.2.2026, which is under challenge.

¶14

The order under challenge is in the nature of interlocutory order by which the revision filed by respondent no.6 has been entertained and interim order has been granted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the interim order granted by the respondent no.2. Against the interim order, the

¶15

WRIB No. 1579 of 2026

¶16

¶17

petitioner has remedy of moving an application for vacation of the interim order and objection regarding the maintainability of the revision itself. As the present petition challenging the validity of the interim order dated 6.2.2026 is not maintainable, no purpose would be served in issuing notices to the contesting respondent.

¶18

As the petitioner has already appeared in Revision No.355 of 2026, pending before the respondent no.2, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to decide the said pending revision, after considering the objection filed by the petitioner regarding its maintainability, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

April 20, 2026

Anil

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

Raja v. State of U.P. and 23 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. State of U.P. and 23 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

Tulsi Das Vs D.D.C.and Others

Gita Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Keshav Prashad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gita vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Kunwar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Brahmdev Upadhayay vs State of U.P. and 6 Others