Disposed¶15

Mohan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2026WRIB/5427/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Writ - B No. 5427 of 2025; Mohan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others; order dated April 16, 2026; Chandra Kumar Rai, J.; interim order; notice issued to respondent nos. 4-6; counter affidavits within 4 weeks; listed 26.5.2026; U.P. C.H. Act Section 19; chak objection; chak appeal; Deputy Director of Consolidation; revision allowed allegedly illegally and arbitrarily; comparative hardships; road-side plot; consolidation; matter requires consideration; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: notice issued to respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, returnable at an early date; steps within a week; respondent nos. 3 to 6 to file counter affidavits within 4 weeks; matter listed on 26.5.2026 before the appropriate Bench. ¶15

Mohan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 5427 of 2025

Mohan And 3 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anil Kumar, Nagendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Maurya

¶9

Court No. - 54

¶10

HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that chak objection filed by the private respondents, was allowed without considering the comparative hardships of the petitioners. He submitted that chak appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed in proper manner but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision in illegal and arbitrary manner. He submitted that the provisions contained under Section 19 of the U.P. C.H. Act has not been considered and the petitioners have been deprived from the road-side plot under the impugned order.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived and there is no illegality in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶14