Akhilesh Kumar Pandey vs Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Gauriganj, Amethi and Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.2, Shri Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent No.3 and filed his counter affidavit and a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶12

In view of the controversy involved in the instant petition, learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be decided finally at the admission stage itself. Hence, with the consent of the parties' counsel, the Court has proceeded to hear the matter.

¶13

Under challenge is the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Gauriganj, District Amethi, whereby an application moved by the private-respondent No.3 dated 13.07.2025 has been allowed by means of the order dated 05.03.2026.

¶14

To put the matter in a perspective, it will be relevant to notice that Shri Chhutai Ram, father and the predecessor-in-interest of the privaterespondent No.4 got the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950'). Thereafter, his son i.e. the private-respondent No.4, namely, Ram Sunder sold the property to the present petitioner after seeking permission from the Additional District Magistrate, who by means of the order dated 06.11.2024 permitted the

¶15

WRIC No. 4038 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

sale to take place.

¶18

It is in this backdrop that the petitioner claimed rights over the property whereas the private-respondent No.3 raised a two pronged attack (i) that the land in question as measured was not available on the site which could have been sold by the private-respondent No.4, namely, Ram Sunder son of Shri Chhutai Ram, (ii) it was also urged that the order by which Shri Chhutai Ram got the benefit under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act of 1950 was based on fraud and incorrect information, hence, the benefit itself could not have been granted and, therefore, the order dated 21.07.2004 be recalled.

¶19

It was a specific ground of the private-respondent No.3 that Shri Chhutai Ram at the relevant time was in the State of Haryana, where he was in Government service and upon retirement was drawing pension, after his death, his sons drew pension. Thus, it was clear that he could not have been granted the said benefit. Apart from this fact, at the relevant time his daughter-in-law was also the Pradhan of the village which made Shri Chhutai Ram completely ineligible for the said benefit.

¶20

It is on the aforesaid premise that the respondent No.1 considered the objections and allowed the same by means of the impugned order dated 05.03.2026.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order submits that neither proper opportunity of hearing was granted nor the evidence led by the parties have been considered while passing of the impugned order. In such circumstances, the order is bad and cannot be sustained.

¶22

Shri Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.3 and Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the Staterespondent have supported the impugned order and submitted that the objections, which were raised by the private-respondent No.3, were not denied by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the findings which have been recorded cannot be said to be bad.

¶23

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused

¶24

WRIC No. 4038 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

the material on record.

¶27

From the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the SubDivisional Magistrate has not referred to any evidence to support his findings. It may be that the parties may have led evidence and produced the necessary documents before the trial Court. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the Court concerned has come to the conclusion which is culled out from the submissions of the parties but there is no reference as to the material upon which the said findings have been based. In case, if it was found by the Court that Shri Chhutai Ram was in Government Service in the State of Haryana and he drew pension and after his death, his sons also got the benefit, but there is no reference to any material on record upon which the said findings are based.

¶28

In the given circumstances, where merely sketchy findings have been given and there is no reference to the material upon which the said conclusion have been arrived at, this Court finds that the impugned order for the aforesaid reasons cannot be sustained.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 is set aside. The matter shall stand restored on the board of the respondent No.1, whereby the parties shall appear on 25.05.2026. The respondent No.1 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment shall pass fresh orders deciding the case by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of three weeks from the date, the parties appear before the Court concerned.

¶30

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of the matter and the respondent No.1 shall be free to decide the matter on the basis of evidence before it in accordance with law.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed . There shall be no order as to costs

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

May 11, 2026

¶34

Rakesh/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey v. Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Gauriganj, Amethi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey v. Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Gauriganj, Amethi and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Autar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Rajitram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Ramujagir vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Sakshi Shriwastav Thru. Her Natural Guardian, Mother Sami Srivastava vs Navoday Vidyalay Samiti Thru. Commissioner and 2 Others

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Assistant Manager Lko. vs U.P. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. and 2 Others

Society Shri Ram Ballabha Bhagwant Vidhyapeeth Distt. Ayodhya Thru. President and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 6 Others