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

Heard Sri Anuj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent and perused the record.

¶11

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

¶12

"(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over Gata No. 25, area 0.3920 hectare, situated at Mauja Bahlolpur, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶13

(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forthwith remove the illegally installed boundary stones/pillars from within Gata No. 25, which have been placed in blatant violation of the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alapur, in the interest of justice."

¶14

The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 25, area of 0.3920 hectare, situated at Mauja Bahlolpur, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶15

WRIC No. 1322 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the private respondent namely Buddhi Ram is trying to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner had to file a Civil Suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar having Original Suit No. 871 of 2023 (Ram Shakal and others Versus Buddhi Ram), wherein the learned Court has passed an interim order dated 01.12.2023, whereby the defendants were specifically restrained from making any interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed land i.e. Gata No. 25 till the next date fixed in the said suit.

¶18

It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by the opposite party no. 4 having Case No. 1394 of 0225 (Buddhi Ram Versus Gram Panchayat and others), learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (J), Alapur, vide order dated 17.04.2024 passed the following order, which reads as under:-

¶19

आदेश

¶20

अतः वाद में प्रस्तुत राजस्व िनरीक्षक की सीमांकन आख्या िदनांक -15.12.2024 मय नजरी नक्शा फील्डबुक इस शतर् के साथ स्वीकार की जाती है िक गाटा संख्या 25 के क्षेत्रफल में कोई हरुाक्षेप नहीं िकया जायेगा। इस आदेश की प्रमािणत प्रित तहसीलदार आलापुर को भेजी जाय। तहसीलदार आलापुर को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक िकसी अन्य गाटे के क्षेत्रफल पर कोई िवपरीत प्रभाव न पड़े एव आबादी से आच्छािदत भूिम , सावर्जिनक भूिम व चकसागर् को छोड़कर ही पत्थर नसब कराये। बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही पत्रावली दािखल दप्तर हो। "

¶21

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities have decided to demarcate the land of the opposite party no. 4 by excluding the area of plot having Gata No. 25.

¶22

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (J), Alapur and an injunction order in favour of the petitioner by the competent Civil Court, the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party no. 4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has already moved a representation before the Collector for the redressal of his grievance but the same has not yet been considered.

¶23

WRIC No. 1322 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Be that as it may, without adverting on the merits of the case, this Court deem it appropriate that the present writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar, narrating all the facts and circumstances of the case in detail within a period of two weeks from today.

¶26

In case, such a representation is preferred by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the authority concerned in accordance with law within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation along with certified copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶27

February 18, 2026 Arun

¶28

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Shakal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, 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

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

Jamaluddin Khan 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