Gauhar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1753 of 2026

Gauhar Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakshit Raj Singh, Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh, Raj Priya Srivastava

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel who has provided the written instructions which are taken on record. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and Sri Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5.

¶10

Under challenge is the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Judicial in proceedings under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was decided against the petitioner. Thereafter an appeal had been preferred which has also been dismissed by means of order dated 27.01.2026 which is also under challenge.

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect of Plot No. 558 Kha. It was asserted by the petitioner that the Plot No. 558 is not the property of the Gaon Sabha rather it is recorded in the Register of Waqf indicating that it was a waqf property.

¶12

It is urged that the house of the petitioner is on the aforesaid wakf property and it cannot be said that the petitioner is an encroacher of the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha.

¶13

WRIC No. 1753 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

It is urged that this aspect of the matter was raised before the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively but it has not been appropriately considered or noticed and in order to buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention to Annexure-5 indicating the extracts of the said waqf that plot no. 558 Kha is recorded therein. The said document raises a prima facie presumption. In case if the same was before the respondent nos. 2 and 3, this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered as without dealing with the same, it cannot be said that the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and unless i.e. determined, the eviction proceedings could not have been proceeded or continued.

¶16

The learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha made submissions but could not dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the property belonging to a waqf has not been noticed and appropriately adjudicated nor the impact of the Annexure-5 has been considered.

¶17

They further submit that no gainful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit or keep the matter pending, however, they have suggested that in case if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded for a decision afresh permitting the State to implead the Waqf and take fresh proceedings considering the respective submissions of the parties, it would meet the ends of justice.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie , the document placed on record as Annexure-5 indicates that the land of Plot No. 558-Kha is recorded as Waqf, it raises a prima facie presumption. It was incumbent upon the two authorities to have determined as to whether the property was of the Waqf or not. In case if it was a Waqf property then under what circumstances, the Gaon Sabha would initiate proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, would have to be considered and adjudicated.

¶19

In light of the aforesaid consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.09.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as order dated

¶20

WRIC No. 1753 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

27.01.2026 passed by the respondent no. 2 are set aside.

¶23

It will be open for the State to take the proceedings afresh after impleading the Waqf and after permitting the parties to lead adequate evidence and permitting the petitioner to indicate that the said property is a Waqf property. All issues shall be considered and the matter shall be decided by the respondent no. 4 by a reasoned and a speaking order preferrably within a period of 6 months from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent no. 4.

¶24

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶25

March 12, 2026

¶26

Asheesh

¶27

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

Gauhar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauhar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., 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

Gulfam Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Its Authorised Signatory vs Niraj Kumar Mishra and 2 Others

Tribhuwan Dutt Trpathi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. / Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Kamla Pati Dubey vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and Others

Ram Chandra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Dukhharn Singh vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others