Babulal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Babulal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the petitioner's objections to the Tehsildar proceedings in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned; no opinion expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No. 5206 of 2025 (Khemraj Singh vs. Babulal), purportedly instituted under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura, are wholly without jurisdiction and non-maintainable and liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the objections filed by the petitioner are pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending; without expressing any opinion on the merits, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the petitioner's objections in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the judgment in K. Valarmathi v. Kumarsan (2025 INSC 606), a plaint or proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Article 226/227; accordingly the prayer to quash the pending Tehsildar proceedings could not be entertained.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 17962 of 2026 (Babulal v. State of U.P. and 4 others), decided May 7, 2026 by Manish Kumar Nigam, J., Allahabad High Court: Petition sought certiorari to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 5206 of 2025 (Khemraj Singh vs. Babulal), purportedly instituted under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura, and mandamus restraining further proceedings and directing decision of the petitioner's preliminary objections on maintainability. Relying on K. Valarmathi v. Kumarsan, 2025 INSC 606 (SLP (C) No. 21466 of 2024, decided 29.04.2025), the Court held that a plaint or proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Article 226/227. Since the petitioner's objections were already filed and pending, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the objections in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 17962 of 2026

Babulal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

			.....Resp	ondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Parvesh Kumar Pa	Kumar ndey	Pandey,	Sarvesh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 36

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records.

2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 5206 of 2025 (Computerised Case No. T202501500505206), titled Khemraj Singh vs. Babulal, purportedly instituted under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the Court of the learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura, not to proceed further in the aforesaid case, being wholly without jurisdiction, nonmaintainable, and in violation of settled principles of law.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus. commanding the concerned authorities to decide the preliminary objections filed by the Petitioner regarding maintainability of the proceedings, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated time."

In view of judgment passed in K. Valarmathi v. Kumarsan reported in 2025 INSC 606 passed in SLP (C) No. 21466 of 2024 decided on

WRIC No. 17962 of 2026

2

29.04.2025, a plaint or proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Article 226/227.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed objections to the proceedings.

Since the objections filed by the petitioner are pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the aforementioned objections of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

May 7, 2026 Ved Prakash

Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad