Dismissed¶21

Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and 11 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2026WRIB/191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-B dismissed at threshold; challenge to ex-parte interim order dated 17.02.2025 of Board of Revenue staying order dated 02.12.2024 passed on private respondents' revision without notice to petitioner Sri Ram Yadav; objections dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure No.8) for vacation of interim order pending; Court did not examine merits; Board of Revenue to decide objections strictly in accordance with law preferably within six months of certified copy; State of U.P., Collector Ayodhya; counsel Rama Niwas Pathak; C.S.C.; Jaspreet Singh, J.; March 12, 2026.

What did the court decide?

None by way of substantive relief; the petition was dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to press his objections before the Board of Revenue. ¶21

Sri Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and 11 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None by way of substantive relief; the petition was dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to press his objections before the Board of Revenue.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, staying the order dated 02.12.2024 on the private respondents' revision, was validly passed without notice to the petitioner. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition at this stage in view of the objections already filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue seeking vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 17.02.2025, and dismissed the petition leaving it open to the petitioner to press those objections.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Board of Revenue shall consider the petitioner's objections and pass appropriate orders deciding them against the interim order, preferably within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it.ratio¶19
The Board of Revenue shall consider and decide the petitioner's objections against the interim order strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶20
The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - B No. 191 of 2026 (Jaspreet Singh, J.), decided March 12, 2026: Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and 11 others. The petitioner challenged the ex-parte interim order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue on a revision by the private respondents, whereby the order dated 02.12.2024 was stayed without notice to him. Noting that the petitioner had already filed objections on 05.02.2026 before the Board of Revenue seeking vacation of the interim order, the Court declined to entertain the writ at this stage and dismissed it, leaving the petitioner free to press his objections. The Board of Revenue was directed to consider and decide the objections against the interim order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within six months of a certified copy of the order being placed before it. The merits were expressly left unexamined.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 191 of 2026

Sri Ram Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya And 11 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rama Niwas Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶12

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the interim order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue on a revision preferred by the private-respondents.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without notice to the petitioner, the impugned interim order directing the stay of the order dated 02.12.2024 has been passed.

¶14

It is urged that without due application, the interim order has been granted as before passing such an order, it would have been more appropriate for the Board of Revenue to have first heard the parties and then could have passed an interim order.

¶15

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has put in appearance before the Board of Revenue and in reply thereto he answered in affirmative and has drawn the attention of the Court to the objections filed before the Board of Revenue on 05.02.2026, a copy of the objections has been brought on record as Annexure No.8.

¶16

Considering the facts that the objections have been filed seeking

¶17

WRIB No. 191 of 2026

¶18

¶19

vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 17.02.2025, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage, accordingly, it is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to press his objections before the Board of Revenue, needless to say that the Board of Revenue shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders and decide the said objections against the interim order preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Board of Revenue concerned.

¶20

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Board of Revenue concerned shall consider and decide the aforesaid objections of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶21

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed .

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶23

March 12, 2026

¶24

Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and 11 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

Gulfam Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Its Authorised Signatory vs Niraj Kumar Mishra and 2 Others

Tribhuwan Dutt Trpathi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. / Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Kamla Pati Dubey vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and Others

Ram Chandra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Gauhar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others