Allahabad High Court
TANVEER AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 16 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is dismissed because the petition raises disputed factual issues that are beyond the jurisdiction of a writ petition.
Summary
The appellant Tanveer Ahmad challenged a Single Judge’s order dismissing his writ petition that sought mandamus to compel a district magistrate to set up an enquiry into alleged manipulation of revenue records and to preserve various documents, among other reliefs. The High Court examined whether the reliefs raised disputed questions of fact that require evidentiary proceedings and are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. It held that the matters sought to be addressed involve inter‑se factual disputes and the examination of public records, which must be decided by a court of appropriate jurisdiction under the U.P. Revenue Code, not by a writ. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s order. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction
- Whether the High Court can issue mandamus directing a district magistrate to constitute an enquiry committee and preserve public records
- Whether the appeal against the Single Judge’s order is maintainable
Legislation cited
Subjects
- property dispute
- revenue records
- writ petition
- mandamus
- high court
- fact vs law
- inter se dispute
- preservation of records
- police protection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 502 of 2026
Tanveer Ahmad
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 16 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramanand Pandey, A.C.S.C.
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated April 1, 2026 passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 3145 of 2026, wherein the learned
Single Judge on coming to the conclusion that the dispute of the petitioner
with respondents no. 6 to 17 pertains to property in dispute which
involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be determined and
adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and, consequently, the petition has been
disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner-appellant to seek appropriate
remedy available to him in proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code or
any other laws as he may be advised.
2. The appellant appearing in person made submissions that the learned
Single Judge was not justified in disposing of the writ petition on count of
the fact that the disputed questions of law were involved. Submissions
have been made that the issue was required to be determined by this Court
only and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
3. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
4. In the writ petition the appellant has sought following reliefs:-
"PRAYER
It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
SPLA No. 502 of 2026
2
kindly be pleased to:-
i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the Respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Gorakhpur) to constitute a
high-level enquiry committee/Special Investigation Team to examine the
manipulation of revenue records and registered documents relating to the
ancestral properties of Late Ali Hasan, particularly with reference to the
registered stamp document of the year 1984 and its use in subsequent sale
deeds executed during 2009-2012;
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to
preserve, secure and produce all original records including Waqf deed
(1944), Will (1952), revenue registers, khatauni records, record room
registers and sale deeds, so as to prevent further tampering or destruction
of public records;
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing independent verification of
identity, parentage and continuity of names appearing in public records,
including those reflected in the 1984 registered stamp and the boundary
descriptions (chauhaddi) of sale deeds executed between 2009 and 2012;
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the competent authorities to
conduct a lawful enquiry into forged entries, impersonation and misuse of
public records, and to take action strictly in accordance with law, if
offences are disclosed;
v) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the State authorities to provide
police protection to the petitioner and his family, in view of repeated
threats, coercion and the incident involving the petitioner's minor child;
(vi) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the case, in the interest of justice.”
5. A perusal of the nature of relief sought by the appellant clearly reveals
that the same essentially involves disputed questions of fact which would
require leading of evidence and determination by court of competent
jurisdiction and filing of the writ petition seeking the said reliefs and
adjudication of inter se dispute between the appellant and private
respondents no. 6 to 17, cannot be countenanced.
6. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in the appeal,
the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
May 7, 2026
RK/AKShukla
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…