Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

LOKENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court directed the revenue officer (respondent No.3) to hear and decide the pending recall/restoration application within three months, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.

Summary

The petitioners filed a public interest writ seeking a mandamus directing the revenue officer (respondent No.3) to decide a recall/restoration application filed on 18‑02‑2025 concerning the mutation of a Gram Sabha name in revenue records for land in Village Ahilyaganj Khadar, Mathura. They alleged that the original order granting title to the predecessor (based on a forged patta) under Section 131‑B of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Revenue Act, 1950, was obtained fraudulently, and that despite an inquiry confirming the forgery, the matter remained pending before the Deputy District Magistrate. The court examined whether it could compel the revenue officer to adjudicate the pending application and whether mandamus was the appropriate remedy. Finding that the pending application required adjudication and that the revenue officer had failed to act despite the inquiry, the court directed the officer to hear and decide the application within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The petition was disposed with that direction.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the revenue officer to decide a pending recall/restoration application.
  • Whether the alleged forgery of the patta justifies intervention and expedited disposal of the pending application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Mandamus
  • Recall Application
  • Restoration Application
  • Forged Patta
  • Land Revenue Law
  • Mutation of Land Records

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2294 of 2026

Lokendra Singh And Another
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Anshul Kumar Singhal
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 51
                        HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"(I) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the
respondent no. 3 to decide the Recall/Restoration application dated 18.02.2025
registered as Case No. RST/4628/2026 within a stipulated period of time so fixed by
this Hon'ble Court by passing reasoned and speaking order and direct for mutating
the name of Gram Sabha in the revenue records with respect to the land forming part
of Gata/ Khasra No. 217M and 239 situated in Village Ahilyaganj Khadar, Tehsil
Sadar, District Mathura."

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis
of a forged patta, the predecessor in interest of respondent no.4 got a
declaration in his favour under Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 by the order dated 8.1.2007. The petitioners have moved a
recall/restoration application in Case No. RST/4628/2026 for recall of the
aforesaid order, which is pending since 18.2.2025, which is evident from
the ordersheet filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. It is contended
that on IGRS complaint made by petitioner no.2, an enquiry was
conducted in which it was found that lease in favour of predecessor in
interest of the respondent no.4 was forged but no action is being taken due
to pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the Deputy District
Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mathura.
                                                                                           WPIL No. 2294 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of
                                    with direction to the respondent no.3 to hear and decide the aforesaid
                                    pending restoration application, in accordance with law, after hearing the
                                    parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of
                                    presentation of a certified copy of this order.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Anil




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.