Disposed¶15

Phool Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2026WRIC/823/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim status quo order; cancellation of 1992 lease; limitation for cancellation application not considered; land recorded as charagah versus banjar; Lekhpal admission; U.P. revenue records; Writ - C No. 823 of 2026; Phool Singh v. State of U.P.; counter affidavit four weeks; rejoinder two weeks; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; March 30, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: both parties directed to maintain status quo till the next date of listing; respondents granted four weeks to file counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter; matter to be listed thereafter. ¶15

Phool Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 823 of 2026

Phool Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Narsingh Pandey, Upadhyay : C.S.C., Deepak Gaur	Rama	Shankar
Court No.- 36

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lease granted to the petitioner in the year 1992 has been cancelled without adverting the question of limitation for filing such application on the ground that the land was recorded as charagah. Lekhpal has admitted that at the time of lease, the land was recorded as banjar and further states that he cannot tell that as to how the land was recorded as banjar.

¶11