Sudama Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3789 of 2026

Sudama

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Imtiyaj Ali, Izharul Haque Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amish Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., Jeetendra Kesharwani, Sudhir Bharti

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

Order on Civil Misc. Modification Application No.2 of 2026

¶12

The aforesaid modification application has been filed by the respondent no.4 namely Pawan Kumar to modify the judgement and order dated 17.02.2026.

¶13

In the fact and change of circumstances, no modification is required hence a prayer has been made that in place of passing any order on modification application the relief as prayed for by the petitioner should be granted.

¶14

In view of the same, modification application is rejected.

¶15

Order on Writ Petition

¶16

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-

¶17

"i) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the ex parte order dated 09.12.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner, Administration-IVth, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, in Appeal No. 2901/2025 (Computerized Case No. C202505000002901), titled Pawan Kumar v. Sudama and Others, instituted under Section 24(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.

¶18

ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of prohibition, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and construction activities of the Petitioner over his own plot, bearing Gata No. 239, admeasuring 0.210

¶19

WRIC No. 3789 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

hectares, situated in Village Ramnagar, Tappa-Batesara, Pargana Sidhuwa Jovna, Tehsil Khadda, District Kushinagar."

¶22

It is argued by Sri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that pursuant to the impugned order passed by this Court dated February 17, 2026 entire constructions has already been carried out by the petitioner.

¶23

It is further argued that ex-parte order dated 09.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2 be set aside and the respondent no.2 be directed to decide the entire appeal in question expeditiously.

¶24

This prayer has not been opposed by counsel for the petitioners.

¶25

In this view of the matter and als in the interest of justice, the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 is set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the entire appeal in question being Appeal No.2901 of 2025 most expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is allowed.

¶27

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶28

March 23, 2026

¶29

Pramod Tripathi

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudama v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Ashwani Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hc Mahendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajnath Pal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neesha vs State of U.P. and Another

Sony Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeloo Dwivedi vs Union of India and Another