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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed a supplementary-affidavit, the same is taken on record. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4.

¶12

Under challenge is the remand order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Additional Commission-II, Devi Patan, Division Gonda whereby the revision preferred by the State-respondents and the Gaon Sabha was allowed, as a consequence, the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has been set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh.

¶13

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revisional court has erred in not taking into consideration the issues raised and it was swayed by the fact that the State and the Gaon Sabha were not appropriately served.

¶14

Submission is that in the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gonda it was specifically noticed that the summons had been served and despite the same the State did not contest the proceedings and in such circumstances the Authority had no option but to proceed and decide in absence of the State-respondent.

¶15

WRIC No. 2001 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It is also urged that once there was a clear finding that the State and Gaon Sabha were duly served, there was no occasion for the revisional court to have remanded the matter, hence the order dated 13.10.2025 suffers from the vice of non application of judicial mind.

¶18

Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the land in question has been recorded as 'Banjar' and is vested in the Gaon Sabha. In respect of the said land, some orders are said to have been passed in consolidation operations wherein the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, late Jagdev was recorded.

¶19

It has also been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that much after the consolidation operations had come to an end and after the death of Jagdev an application was moved by the present petitioners which came to be allowed by means of an order dated 24.03.2011 and the land belonging to the State has been recorded in favour of the petitioners.

¶20

It is in this backdrop that the State had preferred a revision wherein inter alia grounds were taken that the service on the State as well as the Gaon Sabha was not proper and considering this aspect the order impugned passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded vide order dated 13.10.2025 to be decided on its own merits. In such circumstances, the petitioners were to participate in the proceedings since 25.10.2025. The petitioners have approached this Court only in the month of February 2026 and in such circumstances where admittedly the service was not appropriate, no prejudice can be caused to the petitioners who are yet to contest the proceedings on merits. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶22

The thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State were duly represented and they deliberately did not contest and the State cannot be given the benefit of making an application for undoing what has been done by the authorities. In order to ascertain the aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the observations made in the order dated 24.03.2011 in this regard if the observations of the Sub

¶23

WRIC No. 2001 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Divisional Officer at running page 24 of the paper book is seen, it would indicate that notice on the State and the Gaon Sabha is said to have been served on the Gram Pradhan and the District Revenue Counsel.

¶26

A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioners as to whether the notice was served in the office of Collector and the Secretary of the Gaon Sabha to which no categoric answer was given, but the fact remains if the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.03.2011 is seen, it only refers that the said notice was served on the Gram Pradhan and the District Govt. Counsel.

¶27

Apparently, as far as the State is concerned, summon to the State is always served through the office of the Collector. There was no occasion for the service to have been affected on the Gram Pradhan. Moreover, as far as the Gaon Sabha is concerned, the District Govt. Counsel is only authorized to contest the proceedings after the summons are duly served on the Goan Sabha concerned.

¶28

In this view of the matter where there is no clarity to the petitioner as to whether the service was appropriate in such circumstances, inference drawn by the revisional court and noticing the finding that the service was not sufficient on the State and Gaon Sabha is a finding of fact and upon which the matter has been remanded and this reasoning cannot be said to be bad in law.

¶29

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, it is dismissed. It will be open for the parties to raise all their plea before the authority concerned who shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶31

March 11, 2026 ank

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Committee National Inter College Thru. Manager Kaushlesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and Another

Jiyaulla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

M/S Surendra Pal Singh Contrector Thru. Proprietor Surendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

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