Smt. Kalawati Devi vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division Distt. Ayodhya and 6 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2476 of 2026

Smt. Kalawati Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division Distt. Ayodhya And 6 Others

¶7

Division Distt. Ayodhya And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Surya Kant Singh, Shubham Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Shukla

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Surya Kant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who had made a mention before the Court on 09.03.2026 that there is an urgent matter which has been filed in the Registry and since it relates to an order of demarcation of tenure-holding wherein unless the Court intervenes, the petitioner who is under a threat of dispossession would render his cause bad hence, he sought the permission so that the matter can be taken up on the next date i.e. for today.

¶11

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the matter has been placed before this Court.

¶12

Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3 on caveat. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings for separating a minjumla plot bearing No. 1749 was initiated. The private respondent nos. 3 to 7 are the recorded tenure-holder of Plot No. 1749 Ka (m). The proceedings culminated in an ex-parte order dated 15.06.2023.

¶14

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court while allowing the proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had recorded that the notice was duly served on the petitioner but

¶15

WRIC No. 2476 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

they deliberately did not appear, hence, the ex - parte order was passed.

¶18

The contention is that the notice was not served on the petitioner at all and in order to buttress his aforesaid submissions, he has placed the certified copy of the summons on record as Annexure-8 to indicate that the alleged notice was received on behalf of the petitioner and witnessed by Rahul Yadav and Vivek who are none other than the son of the contesting respondent no. 3 and Vivek is a family member of the respondent no. 3. It is thus submitted that the said service could not be held to be sufficient on the petitioner.

¶19

It is also submitted that once the petitioner became aware of the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2023, he assailed the same by filing a revision and the Revisional Court while entertaining the revision vide order dated 06.01.2024 had also passed an interim order.

¶20

While the said proceedings were pending before the Revisional Court, the private respondent no. 3 simultaneously instituted proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein no notice was issued to the petitioner which was necessary being the contiguous tenure-holder and in haste another ex-parte order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed on 18.09.2025 with directions to the police concerned to get the pillars erected and the land be demarcated.

¶21

The submission is that there was no reason for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to have proceeded with such haste so that on one given date an order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is passed and vide the same order, directions were issued to get the land demarcated.

¶22

It is also the case of the petitioner that the manner in which the authorities have held the proceedings is de-hors the provisions and the rules, apart from the fact that the basic issue raised by the petitioner regarding nonservice of summons which apparently was not served, yet the Revisional Court did not consider the said issue nor gave his findings but rejected the revision.

¶23

The matter requires consideration.

¶24

WRIC No. 2476 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

Let notice be issued to the private respondent nos. 4 to 7.

¶27

Steps shall be taken within a period of one week from today.

¶28

Since the contesting respondent no. 3 has already appeared, hence, no fresh notice is required.

¶29

The State as well as the counsel for the respondent no. 3 shall file their counter affidavits within a period of two weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who if may so chose, may file his response within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶30

List this matter in the week commencing 20th April, 2026.

¶31

As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain statusquo over the property in question, as it exists today.

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

March 10, 2026 Asheesh

¶34

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

Smt. Kalawati Devi v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division Distt. Ayodhya and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalawati Devi v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division Distt. Ayodhya and 6 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

Virendra Kumar Verma vs Param Jeet Singh

M/S D.R.Hotels Limited Thru. Finance Director Mr. Amitabh Porwal vs Additional Commissioner Grade II,SECTOR-20,STATE GST Lucknow

Anagh Shukla vs Smt. Ruchika Jaiswal and Ors.

Ram Kishun vs Ashok Kumar Shukla and 5 Others

Prasidhd and 4 Others vs Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Smt. Urmila and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ambedkar Nagar