Dileep Saroj and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Heard Shri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and Shri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.10.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners purchased the land bearing Gata No.51 Gha Minzumla from Asrey alias Ram Asrey Pasi and his wife, Smt. Shiv Kali on 23.01.2026 by means of a registered sale deed. In pursuance of the said sale deed, an application for mutation was also preferred by the petitioners and their names were duly mutated in the revenue records on 23.01.2026.

¶13

It has further been submitted that the private respondents illegally dispossessed the petitioners from the land purchased by them and during such proceedings, were assisted by the local police and the revenue authorities.

¶14

In the aforesaid circumstances, in the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to restore possession of the land to the petitioners and to take disciplinary action against respondent nos.5 to 9 for illegally dispossessing them.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the land purchased by the petitioners had originally been granted as patta to the predecessor-in-interest. The said land is Minzumla land and several other persons were also allotted portions thereof. It is the respondents' case that the

¶16

WRIC No. 4176 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

predecessor-in-interest was not granted any specific piece of land and therefore, the land could not have been sold with clear boundaries in the sale deed. Accordingly, it has been contended that there is a dispute regarding the particular piece of land under Gata No.51 Gha, which is the subject matter of contention in the present case.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that if there is a civil dispute or a demarcation dispute between private individuals, neither the police authorities nor the revenue authorities can interfere in such dispute unless such interference is prescribed under the Revenue Code or any other provision of law. Even if the petitioners were not entitled to the particular piece of property in their occupation, appropriate proceedings ought to have been initiated seeking their eviction from the said land.

¶20

On the other hand, it appears from the record that the names of the petitioners have been duly mutated in respect of land bearing Gata No.51 Gha. However, no document has been brought on record indicating that patta was granted to the predecessor-in-interest with respect to any specific piece of land in Gata No.51 Gha. As regards the prayer for restoration of possession, the same can be ordered only when the competent revenue authority is satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to occupy the particular piece of land which is under dispute in the present case.

¶21

According to the respondents, there is no basis for the sale of the said land or for recording the Chauhadi inasmuch as no such document exists in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.

¶22

From the above, we find that this aspect of the matter is seriously disputed and accordingly, it cannot be decided in writ proceedings as to which portion of Gata No.51 Gha the petitioners are entitled to. Therefore, it is open to the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code or under any other provision of law for establishing their claim over the piece of land on the basis of the sale deed relied upon by them.

¶23

Undoubtedly, in such proceedings, the other persons disputing the petitioners' possession shall also be impleaded as parties and shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before any order is passed.

¶24

We further find that in such proceedings, it shall always be open to the petitioners to move an application for interim relief, which shall be duly considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶25

WRIC No. 4176 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

Accordingly, insofar as the prayer regarding restoration of possession is concerned, the petitioners are relegated to their remedy before the revenue court or under any other law through which they may establish their rights over the disputed land.

¶28

With regard to the action to be taken against the revenue and police authorities, we direct that the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the writ petition shall be duly inquired into by the District Magistrate, who shall examine the conduct of the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities, along with the reasons furnished by them for interfering in the possession of the petitioners and allegedly forcefully dispossessing them. In case the District Magistrate finds that no legal justification is forthcoming from such authorities, he shall pass suitable orders for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the concerned persons.

¶29

Let an order in this regard be passed after due inquiry by means of a reasoned and speaking order within the next two months.

¶30

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

May 15, 2026 Mahesh

¶32

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶33

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

Dileep Saroj and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Saroj and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 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

Maharaj Deen Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

M/S K.D. Devcon Private Limited Thru. Partner Deepak Bansal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Shoukatali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Gonda and 8 Others

Naresh Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others vs Jc 702100W Ex Sub. Skt Gopal Singh Chauhan of 4033 Fd. Hosp.