Puspa Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Heard Shri Anurag Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

¶12

Issue notice to Respondents No.6 & 7, returnable within six weeks.

¶13

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that initially a 'patta' granted in favour of Respondents No.6 and 7 was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.1997. Thereafter the said approval was recalled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 15.07.1997. After recall of the approval dated 04.07.1997, a fresh 'patta' of the same land was issued in favour of the petitioner which was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 20.08.1997.

¶14

The Respondents No.6 and 7 challenged the order dated 15.07.1997, whereby approval granted to their 'patta' was recalled, by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner and ultimately, the said revision was allowed vide order dated 14.09.1998. The revisional order dated 14.09.1998 was challenged before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.2466 (M/S) of 1998, Sri Krishna & others vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Lucknow and others, and this Court vide order dated 24.05.2010 had quashed the revisional order dated 14.09.1998.

¶15

WRIC No. 519 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that after quashing of the revisional order dated 14.09.1998, petitioner's 'patta' granted on 20.08.1997 continued to remain in operation but after about 15 years, all of a sudden, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lakhimpur Kheri had passed the impugned order on 03.11.2025, whereby on the report of the Lekhpal concerned, patta granted in favour of Respondents No.6 and 7 vide approval dated 04.07.1997 had been restored.

¶18

It has further been argued that the 'patta' granted in favour of the petitioner can be cancelled after lapse of five years only on the ground that the 'patta' had been obtained by committing fraud, whereas there is no such finding in the order impugned in this writ petition.

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State though has opposed this writ petition and tried to defend the order impugned in this writ petition, but could not justify as to when there is no element of fraud, then under what circumstances, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lakhimpur Kheri could have cancelled the 'patta' granted in favour of the petitioner and thereby could have revived the 'patta' granted in favour of the Respondents No.6 and 7.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties and prima facie, I find that without there being an element of fraud, there could not have been any occasion for the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lakhimpur Kheri to revive the 'patta' dated 04.07.1997 granted in favour of Respondents No.6 and 7 and thereby cancel the 'patta' granted in favour of the petitioner, as it is well settled proposition of law that after a period of five years any interference in the 'patta' can be made only when it is established on record that the said 'patta' had been obtained by committing fraud.

¶21

Matter requires consideration.

¶22

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶23

List this matter on 07.04.2026, in top ten cases.

¶24

WRIC No. 519 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.984 of 2022, State vs. Chandra Pati , shall remain stayed.

¶27

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶28

February 2, 2026

¶29

akhilesh/-

¶30

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

Puspa Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puspa Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anupama Singh Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Ashish Chauhan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tanveer @ Mohd. Tanveer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Satyendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Raju and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Meera Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Gonda and Others