Interim order in a writ petition challenging a mutation and appeal regarding property title, with notice issued to respondents and parties prohibited from alienating the property.
Notice issued to respondents; parties restrained from alienating the property pending further hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 2195 of 2026
Prasidhd And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh, Nijam Ahamad
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.
Sri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.3 and has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.6.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that his predecessor had purchased the property from the predecessor in interest of private respondent nos.3 to 5 vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.1987. In furtherance thereof, a mutation order was also passed in favour of the petitioners on 10.01.2002 at the behest of the respondent no.3 to 5 after the death of Sri Talukdar. They challenged the mutation order and the appeal has been allowed. The revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that on the date of the sale deed, the predecessor in interest of the private respondent-Talukdar did not have right to sell as the land was Sirdari.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private respondents are mischief mongers. Sri Talukdar during his lifetime had never assailed the sale deed executed in favour of the father of the petitioner-Teeju Ram dated 13.07.1987. It is also urged that on the date of execution of the sale deed, Sri Talukdar already had acquired Bhumidhari
WRIC No. 2195 of 2026
2
rights. Necessary documents were presented before the appellate as well as the revisional court which have not appropriately been considered including the fact the impact and the operation of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977 w.e.f 28.01.1977. It is thus, urged that the findings are incorrect.
Matter requires consideration.
Since the respondent no.3 has already put in appearance, no fresh notice is required.
Let notice be issued to respondent nos.4 and 5.
Steps be taken within a week.
It will be open for the private respondents to file their counter affidavit within three weeks with an advance copy to the petitioners, who if so choose may file his response within a week, thereafter.
List this matter in the week commencing 20.04.2026.
As an interim measure, it is provided that none of the parties shall alienate or create third party right over the property in question.
(Jaspreet Singh,J.)
March 12, 2026
Harshita
Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Prasidhd And 4 Others
Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya
Others
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
