Sajarunnisha and Another vs Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Utraula, Division, Devi Patan, Balrampur and Ors.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 617 of 2026

¶3

Sajarunnisha And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Addl. Commissioner Admini Utraula, Division, Devi Patan	stration Second, , Balrampur And Ors ....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: A.Z. Siddiqui, Prateek Ahmad Abbas Zaidi	Tewari, Syed
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta
Court No.- 5

¶7

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Prateek Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 while Sri Pankaj Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.9.

¶9

In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶10

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the land of gata No.63, area 1.0500 hectare situated in Village-Paranpur, Pargana and Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur was recorded in the name of Azmatulla son of A. Gani (husband and father of petitioner No.s 1 and 2 respectively) who were the recorded tenure holders. The dispute in the present case pertains to adjacent gata No.65 which is recorded in the name of respondent No.s 3 , 4 and 5 measuring an area 1.0110 hectares and the aforesaid respondents are trying to encroach upon the land of the petitioners. It is in aforesaid circumstances that respondent No.s 3 and 4 and 5 had instituted proceedings under Section 24 of U. P. Revenue Code against Azmatulla which was registered as case No.381/358, subsequently re - numbered as case No.4609/2018 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur had directed the Revenue Inspector to submit report by means of order dated

¶11

WRIC No. 617 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

30.6.2016. It is in compliance of the said order that the Revenue Inspector got conducted spot inspection on 2.4.2018 and submitted his report on the same day against which objections were filed by the predecessor-in-interests of petitioner.

¶14

In the meanwhile, certain land of the petitioner was encroached upon by the private respondents and accordingly Azmatulla filed application under Section 24 of U. P. Revenue Code which was registered as Case No.250 which was subsequently renumbered as case No..5328/2018 and the Revenue Inspector was also directed to submit his report by means of order dated 11.4.2018 and the spot was got inspected on 16.4.2018 and report dated 22.5.2018 was submitted against which the private respondents had filed their objections. The Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected the report dated 2.4.2018 instituted by the private respondents and also the demarcation report dated 22.5.2018 which was filed in the case instituted by the petitioners and directed Tehsildar, Utraula, to conduct joint demarcation proceedings of both the gatas and submit joint report. Joint Report was submitted on 29.7.2019 and subsequently Azmatulla had died and accordingly no objections could be filed on behalf of the petitioners against the joint demarcation report dated 29.7.2019.

¶15

It is in aforesaid circumstances that opposite party No.2 proceeded to confirm the joint report dated 29.7.2019 by means of order dated 20.7.2021 wherein no appearance could be put in on behalf of the petitioners and even the execution of the said order was conducted and Patthar Nasab was also done.

¶16

The petitioners thereafter had moved application for recall of order dated 20.7.2021 which was opposed by private respondents and the application for recall was allowed and again directions were issued to conduct joint demarcation of both the disputed lands by order dated 19.3.2024. Similarly, even demarcation report which was submitted in the case instituted by the petitioner was also rejected and joint demarcation report was called for by order dated

WRIC No. 617 of 2026

3

11.7.2024.

The respondents had challenged the order dated 19.3.2024 before opposite party No.2 which revision has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to Sub Divisional Magistrate for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶21

From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the dispute is between two adjacent lands holdings owned by the petitioners as well as respondent No.s 3, 4 and 5. Initially, report was submitted by Revenue Inspector and both the reports were set aside and subsequently a joint demarcation report was called for and joint demarcation report has been set aside and in the case instituted by the petitioner joint demarcation report has been called for but till date the said proceeding are pending before opposite party No.2.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by Additional Commissioner remanding the matter for adjudication afresh before the Sub Divisional Magistrate as the other related matter is pending adjudication and both the cases have bearing with each other and have to be decided together.

¶23

In the aforesaid circumstances, Sub Divisional Magistrate called for a fresh joint demarcation report and all the contesting parties were at liberty to file their objections and the matter ought to have been decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners also does not object to the fresh decision to be taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after summoning the joint demarcation report and after affording full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶25

In light of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order dated 18.11.2025 and the petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to summon a fresh

¶26

WRIC No. 617 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

demarcation report in accordance with law and grant liberty to all the parties to file their objections and decide the matter with expedition. Let such exercise be conducted expeditiously say within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

¶29

The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before opposite party No.2.

¶30

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶31

February 3, 2026 RKM.

¶32

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

Sajarunnisha and Another v. Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Utraula, Division, Devi Patan, Balrampur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajarunnisha and Another v. Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Utraula, Division, Devi Patan, Balrampur and Ors.

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

M/S Mahawar Marketings Private Limited Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Mahawar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. B.M. and others

Smt. Rajni Devi vs Dr. Anwar Ahmad Siddiqui

Saloni and 3 Others vs Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur and 4 Others

Munshi Rja @ Munshi Rja Khan vs Shakeel Ahmad and Another

Vishvnath Shukla vs Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others