Bideshari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 13 Others

Ms. Meena Gaud, Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, is present before the Court in pursuance of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2026.

¶12

To put the matter in a perspective, it will be appropriate to notice the prayers made by the petitioner which are being reproduced hereinafter:"

¶13

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding Respondents to forthwith initiate and conclude proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction of illegal occupants from Gata Nos. 100, 66 and 67, VillageBansgaon, TehsilKaiserganj, DistrictBahraich, in the interest of justice.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari declaring all gift deeds or transfers executed by illegal occupants over the aforesaid Gaon Sabha land after 15.07.2025 as null, void and nonest, in the interest of justice.

¶15

(iii) Direct the respondents to consider and decide petitioners' claim for allotment/patta under Sections 63 and 64 of the U.P. Revenue Code immediately after eviction, in the interest of justice.

¶16

(iv) Direct initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Tehsildar and concerned revenue officials for noncompliance of the High Court's judgment 15.07.2025, in the interest of justice."

¶17

WRIC No. 995 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they are landless labourers belonging to Nut Community and have been making representations to the State for providing them with some land for their habitation.

¶20

It is in this context, averments have been made in the writ petition that Plots No. 66, 67 and 100 of Tehsil -Kaiserganj, District Bahraich has been encroached. No proceedings have been initiated for removal of such encroachment whereas the petitioners have earlier filed a writ petition which was disposed of by means of order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 5693 of 2025.

¶21

It is stated that a coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order order dated 15.07.2025 had granted liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the Tehsildar who was required to consider the same and also initiate proceedings under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of encroachments.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite the said order having been placed before the Tehsildar concerned on 05th August, 2025, yet no proceedings were initiated which led the petitioners to institute the instant petition which was filed in the registry of this Court on 27.01.2026.

¶23

It is further urged that the matter came up before the coordinate Bench on 19.02.2026 wherein the order was passed and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereinafter for ease of reference:-

¶24

“4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that he preferred an application dated 06.08.2025 for compliance of the Court's order but the authorities did not entertain the said application and kept the matter pending in utter disregard of the orders of this Court.

¶25

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent has stated that he has received instructions from the Tehsildar Kaiserganj, Bahraich dated 29.01.2026, whereby he has been instructed to make a statement that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has how been initiated.

¶26

On a pointed query made by this Court that when the said proceedings have initiated and what is the stage of the same, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not answer the query of the Court.

¶27

It is unfortunate that specific queries made by the Court are not answered by the State-authorities, causing

¶28

WRIC No. 995 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matters. Lengthy instructions without any reply to the decisive question are nothing but sheer paper work, which can not be appreciated at any cost.

¶31

In view of the above, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, is directed to appear before this Court along with the complete record to assist the Court in the disposal of the matter."

¶32

It is also the contention of the petitioner that it is only at a very late stage that proceedings were initiated after the State-Authorities had been received with the copies of the writ petition.

¶33

Noticing the aforesaid, the coordinate Bench had passed an order which had been reproduced hereinabove and in the aforesaid factual backdrop, the matter is placed before the Court today wherein the Tehsildar concerned is also present in person.

¶34

The officer present has informed that in so far as the Plot No. 66 is concerned, the same is Abadi land and it is occupied by the habitants of the village concerned. As far as the allegations regarding execution of the gift deeds is concerned, that is a purely private matter and the deeds have been executed by one occupant in favour of the other relating to the land which is part of their Abadi, coupled with the fact that there are certain civil suits which are also engaging the attention of the competent Civil Court.

¶35

The crux of the contention is that since the Plot No. 66 is the Village Abadi, hence, any execution of the gift deeds cannot be prohibited nor the Tehsil Authorities have any right to intervene unless there is an order passed by a competent Court which needless to say is not present.

¶36

It has further been stated that Plot No. 100 was inspected and certain encroachments were found and taking cognizance thereof proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated against the alleged illegal occupants and their case numbers are being mentioned herein:-

¶37

(i) Gaon Sabha v. Anvar Khan; Case No. T202608150300828;

¶38

(ii) Gaon Sabha v. Akbal Khan; Case No. T202608150300829;

¶39

(iii) Gaon Sabha v. Shabbu Khan; Case No. T202608150300831;

¶40

(iv) Gaon Sabha v. Aslam Khan; Case No. T202608150300832;

¶41

WRIC No. 995 of 2026

¶42

4

¶43

(iv) Gaon Sabha v. Muslim Khan; Case No. T202608150300833;

¶44

It is also urged that the matter is under active consideration of the officer concerned who has also assured the Court that the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶45

It has further been pointed out that Plot No. 67 i.e. reserved for public utilities which are roads and other pathways for the village concerned. Apparently, the aforesaid averments made could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners who also admit that Plot No. 66 is the Village Abadi and Plot no. 67 is for roads and pathways.

¶46

It is in the aforesaid context that if prayer no. (i) is seen, it would indicate that the same has lost its efficacy, inasmuch as, the proceedings for eviction have already been initiated on 29.01.2026 and the matter is underway.

¶47

As far as the second relief declaring gift deeds to be void is concerned, this relief also cannot be granted for more than one reason; first the gift deeds do not relate to the Gaon Sabha land as alleged in the petition rather the same is part of the Village Abadi and the said gift deeds have been executed by the occupants thereof.

¶48

Even otherwise, this Court will be slow in entering into any private transactions or declaring the same as void, however, in case if any person who has some right, title or interest only can move the appropriate court, however, as far as the petitioners are concerned, they have nothing to do with it nor they come within the meaning of an aggrieved person, hence, the second relief also cannot be granted.

¶49

The third relief which has been claimed is regarding considerations of the petitioners' claim for allotment of some land. This is in the domain of the respondent-authorities. It is not disputed by the respondents that the said representation is already engaging the attention of the Authority concerned and no decision has been taken. It is expected that the same shall be considered on the merit and be decided within a period of six weeks and intimated to the petitioners.

¶50

Regarding the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned, this Court does not find that at this stage, any such order should be passed, however, this Court is pained to notice that the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 5693 of 2025 was placed before the respondent no. 5, however, despite being in knowledge of the same, it was not adhered to nor any action was taken. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to ignore the orders passed by the Constitutional Courts which cannot be accepted.

¶51

There appears to be some weight in the submission of the learned

¶52

WRIC No. 995 of 2026

¶53

5

¶54

counsel for the petitioner when he says that the after the notice was served of the instant writ petition which was filed on 27.01.2026, it is only thereafter that the Authorities have woken up from their slumber and registered the cases on 29.01.2026.

¶55

In this regard, a specific query was put to the officer concerned present before this Court that as to when the order was in the knowledge of the Authority, why it was not promptly attended to and in response except for apologizing, there was no reason ascribed. The aforesaid conduct cannot be appreciated.

¶56

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that it will be appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent no. 5 for deliberately avoiding compliance of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The said amount shall be deposited with the Mediation & Conciliation Center of this Court by 10th March, 2026 to be paid through the salary account of the respondent no. 5 and the receipt thereof shall be placed on record alongwith this case.

¶57

With the aforesaid, no further action is required in the present writ petition which stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶59

February 26, 2026

¶60

Asheesh

¶61

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

Bideshari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bideshari and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 13 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

Kusum Pathak @ Kusuma Devi vs Addl. Commissioner Administration, Prayagraj Division Prayagraj and Others

Lallan Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Tahsil Nawabganj, Barabanki and Others

Rasheed Ahmed @ Raseed and Others vs Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Chairman, Lko. and Others

Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gautam Prasad vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin.), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Ram Niwas Maurya vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. Thru. Its President and 2 Others