Ajay Pratap Yadav vs Ramesh Chandra Yadav and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ajay Pratap Yadav vs Ramesh Chandra Yadav and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief: till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.22851 of 2025 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State) shall remain stayed; respondents granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit; rejoinder affidavit, if any, within one week thereafter; matter to be listed after four weeks. Writ petition otherwise remains pending.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 initiated by respondents No.1 and 2 are maintainable against the petitioner, given the absence in the plaint of any allegation that the petitioners are tenants of the land in dispute. +1 more

Court's answer

Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 contemplates a suit by the tenant for declaration of his right and share in the property in dispute.

Ratio / Principle

Since the plaint contains no allegation that the petitioners are tenants of the land in dispute or claim any declaration of their tenancy rights, prima facie the proceedings under Section 59 are not maintainable (prima facie view recorded at the interim stage, forming the basis of the interim stay).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; decision dated April 7, 2026) in WRIT - C No. 12175 of 2026, Ajay Pratap Yadav v. Ramesh Chandra Yadav & 4 Others: The petitioner, Manager of an Institution, challenged proceedings under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 ('Suit by tenant for declaration of right or share') initiated by respondents No.1 and 2, along with the impugned order dated 20.3.2026 by which his objections to maintainability were rejected without consideration. Noting that Section 59 contemplates a suit by a tenant for declaration of his right and share, and that the plaint (page 66 of the paper book) by the plaintiff-respondents — who describe themselves as Advocates by profession — contained no allegation that the petitioners were tenants of the disputed land or sought a declaration of tenancy rights, the Court held that prima facie the proceedings were not maintainable. Interim stay of further proceedings of Case No.22851 of 2025 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State) till the next date of listing; counter affidavit within three weeks; rejoinder within one week thereafter; matter listed after four weeks.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 12175 of 2026

Ajay Pratap Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Yadav And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Singh, Advocate	Adarsh Singh, Sr.
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sunil Kum	ar Srivastava

Court No. - 36

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Brij Raj Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed by the Manager of the Institution challenging the proceedings under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 initiated by respondents No.1 and 2. In proceedings under Section 59 of the Act, petitioner filed objections as to the maintainability of the proceedings. By the order impugned dated 20.3.2026, objections of the petitioner has been rejected without considering the objections filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 59 which are quoted as under :-

"59. Suit by tenant for declaration of right or share

(1) Any person claiming to be a tenant or a joint tenant may sue the land-holder for a declaration that he is a tenant, or for a declaration of his share in such joint tenancy.

(2)In any suit under this section any person claiming to hold through the land-holder, whether as tenant or otherwise, shall be joined as a party."

WRIC No. 12175 of 2026

2

Section 59 of the Act contemplates the suit by the tenant for declaration of his right and share in the property in dispute. From perusal of the plaint, which is at page 66 of the paper book, it is apparent that the plaintiffs-respondents claim themselves to be an Advocates by profession and they also claim that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to keep the public property safe. There is no allegation that petitioners are the tenants of the land in dispute or claiming any declaration of their tenancy rights over the land in dispute, prima facie , proceedings are not maintainable.

Shri Brij Raj Singh, Advocate appears for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 and 4 are represented by learned Standing Counsel and respondent no.5 is represented by Shri S.K. Srivastava, Advocate.

Respondents are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.

List this matter after four weeks.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.22851 of 2025 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State) shall remain stayed.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

April 7, 2026 Rishabh

Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad