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

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026WRIC/1200/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition where subject-matter is sub judice before competent civil forum; mandamus for compliance with status quo order declined; alternative remedy; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Gram Nyayalaya, Patti, Pratapgarh; Gata No. 405/505 (0.2280 hectare); Suit No. 10060/2025; Civil Suit No. 103 of 2025; WRIT - C No. 1200 of 2026; disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus sought was not issued; writ petition finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail legal remedies before the competent Court having jurisdiction. ¶¶21

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mandamus sought was not issued; writ petition finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail legal remedies before the competent Court having jurisdiction.

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus to the Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Patti to comply with his status quo order dated 03.12.2025 is entertainable when the dispute over the same property is pending before the competent civil forum. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

Since the fact of pendency of the dispute before the competent Court in respect of the property in question is not disputed and the matter is sub judice before the competent forum for adjudication, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the writ petition.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail such legal remedies as are available under law before the competent Court having jurisdiction.

¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.), WRIT - C No. 1200 of 2026, decided February 18, 2026. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Patti, District Pratapgarh, to comply with his order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Suit No. 10060/2025 (Computerized Suit No. T202502570410060) directing the parties to maintain status quo over the land in question. The State and respondent no. 4 opposed the petition as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pointing out that Civil Suit No. 103 of 2025 (Umashankar & others versus Ashok Yadav & others) concerning Gata No. 405/505 (0.2280 hectare) was pending before the Gram Nyayalaya, Patti, Pratapgarh with ad interim injunction granted, and that a proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was also pending with a status quo order dated 03.12.2025. Held: the pendency of the dispute before the competent Court not being disputed and the matter being sub judice, there was no good reason to entertain the writ petition; the petition was finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail legal remedies before the competent Court having jurisdiction.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1200 of 2026

Hari Ram

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tushar Manjhwar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶8

Court No. - 19

¶9

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, Advocate along with Sri Tushar Manjhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶12

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2-Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Patti, District Pratapgarh to comply his order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Suit No. 10060/2025 Computerized Suit No. T202502570410060 (Hari Ram Versus Umashankar and others) by which the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo upon land in question."

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent, on the basis of the instructions has submitted that in respect of Gata No.405/505 in the area ad-measuring 0.2280 Hectare, Civil Suit No.103 of 2025 (Umashankar & others Versus Ashok Yadav & others) is pending before the Gram Nyayalaya, Patti, Pratapgarh, wherein ad interim injunction has been granted. He further submitted that the dispute in respect of the said plot of land is

¶14

WRIC No. 1200 of 2026

¶15

¶16

pending before the competent Civil Court and as such, the present writ petition is not entertainable.

¶17

It is further stated on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel that in respect of the same property, a proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is also pending, wherein the order of status quo has been passed on 03.12.2025.

¶18

Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has also opposed the writ petition on the ground of its maintainability under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that since the dispute regarding the share is already pending for adjudication before the competent Court, as such, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition can not be granted.

¶19

Be that as it may, the fact regarding the pendency of dispute before the competent Court of law in respect of the property in question, is not disputed and therefore, in view of the fact that the matter is subjudice before the competent forum for adjudication, this Court does not finds any good reason to entertain the present writ petition.

¶20

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail legal remedies as are available under law before the competent Court having jurisdiction.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is finally disposed of .

¶22

February 18, 2026 Arun

¶23

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Smt. Sushma Devi vs Rajneesh

Ayushi Singh vs Dharmendra Kumar

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma and others vs Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow and others

Jamaluddin Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Shakal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

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