Disposed¶15

Ram Asre v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2026WRIC/1114/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. Revenue Code S.129; alternative efficacious remedy; restoration of possession of patta land; forceful occupation/encroachment; gata No.103/14, village Baina Tikarahar, District Barabanki; non-joinder of alleged encroachers; writ disposed of with liberty to file fresh application before competent authority; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur, J.; decided 16.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in accordance with law before the competent authority, who on receipt of the same shall proceed in accordance with law. ¶15

Ram Asre vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1114 of 2026

Ram Asre

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev	Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.,	Mohan Singh

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh for respondent No.5.

¶12

In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶13

It has been submitted that the petitioner was granted a patta in gata No.103/14 area 0.2530 hectare situated in village Baina Tikarahar, Tehsil Fatehpur, Pargana Kursi, District Barabanki on 31.1.2001. It is stated that subsequently certain persons have forcefully occupied the said land and accordingly the petitioner gave an application under Section 129 of U.P.Revenue Code for restoration of the possession of the said land. It seems that there is no evidence that any proper application under Section 126 has been filed by the petitioner before the competent authority nor has he made that persons, against whom allegations have been leveled for forceful occupation, as respondents. As such, no direction as sought by the petitioner, can be issued.

¶14

Apart from the above , we find that the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 129 of U.P.Revenue Code. It is further noticed that proper application has to be made in accordance with law before the competent authority and proceed to decide the dispute as raised by the petitioner with regard to forceful occupation of his land.

¶15

The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law before the competent authority, who on receipt of the same, shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶16

February 16, 2026 RKM.

¶17

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶18

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

Ram Asre v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Asre v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 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

Similar cases

Santosh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Additional Commissioner Administration- Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Ram Nageena Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Malti Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 22 Others

Javed Alam vs Addl. Magistrate -I (Atrikat Magistrate -I), Ayodhya and Others

Shri Pal and Another vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial First, Lucknow Division, Lko. and Others