Allahabad High Court

MUKESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The exchange of public utility land must comply with Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code and Rule 84 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, and the petition seeking prohibition is dismissed.

Summary

Mukesh Kumar filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus and prohibition to stop the Commissioner, Aligarh from proceeding with a land exchange alleged to be fraudulent and not in compliance with statutory procedures. The petitioner claimed that the exchange of a public utility land was being effected without registration of a case under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and without following the provisions governing change of land user. The Court examined the records and held that such an exchange is permissible only if it complies with Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code read with Rule 84 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which require a change of user by the State Government and proper recommendation by the District Magistrate. The Court found the petitioner's allegation that the revenue authorities acted without a Section 101 case to be unsubstantiated and declined to interfere with the authorities' exercise of power at this stage. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with a direction to the respondents to ensure any contemplated exchange is carried out strictly according to law.

Issues considered

Whether the Commissioner, Aligarh can be restrained from proceeding with the land exchange without a case registered under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the exchange of public utility land is permissible without complying with Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code and Rule 84 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 101, 77
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 84

Subjects

public interest litigation
land exchange
revenue law
writ of prohibition
mandamus
U.P. Revenue Code
fraudulent exchange
public utility land

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2357 of 2026

Mukesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pathak, Brajesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State. Sri Arun Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on
behalf of Gaon Sabha.

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

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Commissioner Aligarh, Division Aligarh not to decide the exchange proceeding which
is outcome of the fraud and entire exercise has been done without following the
procedure of law.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent
to make inquiry in the matter and further pleased to direct the respondent not to
proceed with the exchange proceeding unless inquiry is conducted in order to verify
that proceeding of exchange has been made properly in accordance with law or the
same is outcome of fraudulent act in order to make proposal by the Gaon Sabha
Susayat Kalan, Tehsil Sasani, District Hathras."

3. The prayer made in the present PIL is in the form of writ of prohibition
restraining the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh not to exercise
his authority provided to him under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is
alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the exchange is being
directed by resorting to fraudulent act. It is contended that this Court by
seeking a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate about the possibility
of exchange has forwarded the matter to the Commissioner for directing
the exchange, without registering any case under Section 101 of the Code,
WPIL No. 2357 of 2026
2

2006.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the records.

5. The exchange in question appears to be of a public utility land, which is
not permissible under law, unless the user of the land is changed in
accordance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Code read with Rule
84 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. The recommendation of the
District Magistrate, which has been forwarded to the Commissioner, is in
fact a part of the proceedings, under which, before permitting the
exchange in accordance with law, the user of Gaon Sabha land recorded
as chakmarg has to be changed by the State Government. The allegation
of the petitioner that the revenue authorities without registration of any
case under Section 101 are proposing to allow the exchange of
bhumidhari land of respondent no.7 with a public utility land does not
appear to be correct, requiring interference with the exercise undertaken
by the revenue authorities, at this stage.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondent nos.2 to 4 to ensure that if any exchange is
under consideration at the behest of respondent no.7, it shall be
undertaken strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the need of
the villagers of the chakroad, which is alleged to be the subject matter of
exchange.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
October 1, 2026
Anil

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…