Disposed¶23

Sajivan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH) – Writ

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2026WRIC/1425/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 67(1) U.P. Revenue Code 2006; removal of encroachment; Gata No. 51; 0.0380 hectare; Anusuchit Jati Abadi; Harijan Abadi; Form CH-41; Scheduled Caste; Tehsildar Bangarmau Unnao; Collector Unnao appeal; certiorari; writ petition admitted; counter affidavit six weeks; interim stay of impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 and 30.05.2025; listing 14.05.2026; Manjive Shukla, J.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 and 30.05.2025 until the next date of listing (14.05.2026); respondents directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks, with two weeks thereafter to petitioners for rejoinder affidavit. ¶23

Sajivan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' possession over the land of Gata No. 51, which stands earmarked/reserved as 'Anusuchit Jati Abadi'/'Harijan Abadi' as per Form CH-41, can be termed encroachment so as to sustain the removal orders passed under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, particularly when the Tehsildar and the Collector, Unnao did not consider this ground.

¶17

Court's answer

Prima facie, the Court finds substance in the petitioners' contention that, the land of Gata No. 51 having already been reserved as 'Harijan Abadi', their possession over it cannot be termed encroachment; however, the matter is expressly left open for further consideration.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 and 30.05.2025 shall remain stayed.

¶23

Key takeaways

Respondents to file counter affidavit within six weeks; petitioners to have two weeks thereafter for rejoinder affidavit; case to be listed/put up after eight weeks on 14.05.2026.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH) — Writ - C No. 1425 of 2026, Sajivan & 4 Others v. State of U.P. thru. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. & Others (Manjive Shukla, J., February 24, 2026): Petitioners challenged the order dated 28.02.2025 of the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Bangarmau, Unnao, passed under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, directing removal of their possession from land of Gata No. 51 measuring 0.0380 hectare, and the subsequent order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 2 (appeal decided by the Collector, Unnao). Petitioners' plea — that they belong to the Scheduled Caste community and that Gata No. 51, as per Form CH-41, stands earmarked 'Anusuchit Jati Abadi'/'Harijan Abadi', so their possession cannot be treated as encroachment — was not considered by either authority. The Court prima facie found substance in this contention; counter affidavit directed within six weeks, rejoinder two weeks thereafter; operation and implementation of both impugned orders stayed till the next listing on 14.05.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1425 of 2026

Sajivan And 4 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

¶7

n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vishun Narain
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶8

Court No. - 21

¶9

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Vishun Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No's. 1 to 4 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5.

¶11

The captioned writ petition has been filed inter alia, praying therein for the following relief:-

¶12

"(i.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 2 and impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 4 contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition."

¶13

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Assistant Collector / Tehsildar, Bangarmau, Unnao had passed an order on 28.02.2025 whereby in exercise of power under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, he had directed for removal of possession of the petitioner from the land of Gata No. 51 measuring 0.0380 hectare. It has been further contended that the petitioners before the Tehsildar have taken categorical ground that they belong to Scheduled Caste community and the land of Gata No. 51, as per Form CH-41, has been earmarked for 'Anusuchit Jati Abadi', therefore, their possession on the land in question cannot be termed as encroachment but the said ground has not been considered by the Tehsildar while passing the impugned order dated 28.02.2025.

¶14

WRIC No. 1425 of 2026

¶15

¶16

It has been argued that neither the Tehsildar nor the Collector, Unnao while deciding appeal have considered the aforesaid categorical ground taken by the petitioners that the land of Gata No. 51 had already been earmarked as 'Harijan Abadi', therefore, petitioners possession over the said land cannot be termed as encroachment.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents though tried to defend the orders impugned in this writ petition but could not give any satisfactory reply in respect of the fact that when land of Gata No. 51 had already been reserved as 'Harijan Abadi', then how the petitioners' possession over the said land can be termed as encroachment.

¶18

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and prima facie, I find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners.

¶19

Matter requires consideration.

¶20

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents in the matter within a period of six weeks.

¶21

Two weeks thereafter shall be available to the petitioners for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶22

10.List/Put up this case after eight weeks on 14.05.2026 .

¶23

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025 and 30.05.2025 shall remain stayed.

¶24

February 24, 2026 Lokesh Kumar

¶25

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶26

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

Sajivan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajivan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Rais vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Kesar Jahan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Kamal and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Person Shri Rahul Sharma vs The Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. (Lucknow) and Anr.

M/S Tirupati Agencies Thru. Proprietor Dharamveer Singh Bagga vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Super Sales Thru.Proprietor Mohammad Kaleem Siddiqui vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax Registration Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rakesh and 4 Others vs Smt. Renu Singh and 2 Others