Awadhesh Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3285 of 2026

¶3

Awadhesh Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :	Ram Karan
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 19

¶8

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶9

Shri Ram Karan, learned counsel for petitioners, and Shri Deo Prakash Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents are present.

¶10

In view of the proposed order being passed, issuance of notice to the respondent No. 3 is hereby dispensed with.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tikait Nagar, Tehsil Sirauligauspur, District Barabanki in Case No. 01297/2019 (Awadhesh Kumar and others Vs. Muneshwar Prasad) Computerized Case No. T201904120601297 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶12

Precisely the submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that learned Naib Tehsildar Tikait Nagar, Tehsil Sirauligauspur, District Barabanki passed the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 without taking into consideration the fact that the proceedings under Section 33 of he U.P. Revenue Code were initiated in the year 2005 by the revenue authorities in respect of the land in question on he basis of succession and vide order dated 15.05.2005, the land in question was recorded in the name of one Ram Pyari after the death of testator of the Will dated 11.01.2005.

¶13

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said proceedings were initiated in the year 2006 before the Sub Registrar-IV, Lucknow by

¶14

WRIC No. 3285 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

the petitioner and vide order dated 21.02.2006 the concerned authority declined the registration of the said Will and rejected the case of the petitioners. Against the said order dated 21.02.2006, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act having Appeal No. 01/2006.

¶17

It is further contended that the appellate court vide order dated 29.04.2008 allowed the appeal. However, the said order dated 29.04.2008 came to be amended by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Registration, Lucknow dated 26.05.2008 whereby the order for registration of the said Will was issued. He submits that once the order for registration of the Will was made by the competent court, the revenue authorities could not have disputed the said Will and as such while passing the impugned order the revenue court has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the validity of the Will.

¶18

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State/respondents has refuted the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the question involved in the present case could not be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further the petitioners have an efficacious and statutory remedy of an appeal available under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and the question involved in the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal as prescribed under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It shall be open for them to raise all the pleas and grounds available to them before the appellate court.

¶21

It is provided that in case the petitioners prefer an appeal under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and decided on merits within the period as prescribed under Rule 183 (4) of the U.P. Revenue

¶22

WRIC No. 3285 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

Code Rules, 2016. In addition to the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners prefers an application for interim relief in the said appeal, the appellate court shall entertain the said application and shall pass appropriate orders on the said application in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the application in the said appeal.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of .

¶26

No order as to costs.

¶27

April 13, 2026

¶28

Virendra

¶29

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶30

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

Awadhesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 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

Poonam Kohli vs Virat Chandra Chaudhary

Smt. Shweta Singh vs Anil Kumar Singh

Smt. Anshu Kumari Alias Anshu vs Ramesh Chandra

Sheetla Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Pyare Lal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue, Lko. and 20 Others

Ganga Ram vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member and 3 Others