Smt Poonam and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt Poonam and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice issued to respondent nos. 6 and 7, returnable at an early date, steps within 10 days; counter affidavit within six weeks and rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter; matter listed on 9.5.2026; interim stay until further orders of the effect and operation of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by respondent no.2, Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj. Writ petition remains pending; no final relief decided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision filed by respondent no.7 before the Board of Revenue is maintainable during the pendency of his appeal before the Commissioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Interim direction: until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by respondent no.2, Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj shall remain stayed. The Court found, on the arguments advanced on 4.2.2026, that the matter requires consideration, and issued notice to respondent nos. 6 and 7 with counter affidavits within six weeks and rejoinders within two weeks thereafter, listing the matter on 9.5.2026. No final view was expressed on the maintainability of the revision.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.), Writ - B No. 453 of 2026, order dated March 17, 2026 — Partition/Revenue matter, interim stage. Petitioners obtained a preliminary decree and confirmation of kurra in a suit for partition. Respondent no.7, who purchased part of the property from respondent no.6, applied for restoration; the restoration/recall application was decided by the trial Court; his appeal before the Commissioner saw an interim order initially granted but later vacated; he then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, wherein an interim order was granted on 27.11.2025. Petitioners contended the revision before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable while the appeal was pending before the Commissioner. The Court held the matter requires consideration, issued notice to respondent nos. 6 and 7 (counter affidavit within six weeks, rejoinder within two weeks), listed the matter for 9.5.2026, and until further orders stayed the effect and operation of the Board of Revenue's order dated 27.11.2025. No final determination was made on maintainability.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - B No. - 453 of 2026

Smt Poonam And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pradeep Chauha	n
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Avinash Chan	dra Srivastava, C.S.C.,
	Durga Charan Kumar Pandey	Singh Yadav, Manish

Court No. - 55

HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

On 4.2.2026, following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Durga Charan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Mr. T.P. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent- Gram Panchayat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a suit for partition filed by petitioners preliminary decree was prepared and kurra was confirmed after following the provisions contained under the Code and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that respondent no.7 has purchased the part of the property from respondent no.6 and has applied for restoration. He further submitted that restoration/ recall application has been properly decided by the trial Court. He further submitted that the appeal was filed by respondent no.7 before Commissioner in which initially interim order was granted but later on interim order was vacated. He further submitted that against the interim order passed during pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner revision was filed by respondent no.7 before Board of Revenue in which interim order has been granted. He further submitted that revision filed by respondent no.7 before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable as appeal filed by respondent no.7 is already pending before Commissioner.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 shall address the Court as to how the revision is maintainable before the Board of Revenue during pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner. He shall also address the Court that how the kurra

WRIB No. 453 of 2026

2

prepared by the Lekhpal is affecting the interest of respondent no.7 in respect to the plot in question.

4. Put up this case as fresh on 19.2.2026."

Mr. Durga Charan Singh Yadav and Mr. Manish Kumar Pandey, learned Counsels who have filed caveat on behalf of respondent no.7 submitted that they have no instruction from the client, as such, they cannot address the Court in reply to the order dated 4.2.2026 passed by this Court.

Considering the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners on 4.2.2026, the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 6 and 7 returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within 10 days.

Respondent nos. 6 and 7 shall file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this matter on 9.5.2026.

Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by respondent no.2, Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj shall remain stayed.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

March 17, 2026

Vandana Y.

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad