Allahabad High Court
ROOPRANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The interim protection was granted in proper manner and no interference is required, but the pending revision must be decided after affording a proper hearing to both parties.
Summary
The petitioner, Rooprani, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash an order dated 18 February 2026 issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kannauj, which granted interim protection in a title revision filed by the respondents without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the interim protection violated the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded. The respondents contended that the Deputy Director had properly entertained the revision and that the recall application filed by the petitioner had been duly considered and rejected. The Court examined the record and found that the interim protection was granted in a proper manner to restrain the opposite party from creating a third‑party interest in the disputed plot. Consequently, the Court held that no interference with the Deputy Director's order was warranted, but directed that the pending revision be decided after affording both parties a proper hearing within three months. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order granting interim protection in the title revision without a hearing violates natural justice.
- Whether the High Court can quash the Deputy Director's order granting interim protection.
- Whether the decision rejecting the petitioner's recall application is liable to be interfered with.
Subjects
- interim protection
- title revision
- natural justice
- hearing
- certiorari
- land dispute
- Deputy Director of Consolidation
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1718 of 2026
Rooprani
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Praveen Kumar Chaubey, Satyendra
Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manish Kumar Singh, Saurabh
Kumar Tiwari
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State respondents and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel
for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
order dated 18.2.2026 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
Kannauj in revision no. 0442/225 (Harish Chandra and others Vs.
Rooprani)."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that title revision filed by
private respondent has been entertained and interim protection has been
granted without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. He
submitted that caveat was filed on behalf of petitioner before Deputy
Director of Consolidation but without affording opportunity of hearing,
the interim protection has been granted which is illegal. He submitted that
interim protection granted in revision should be recalled and interim
protection matter should be heard afresh by Deputy Director of
Consolidation after affording opportunity to petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4
submitted that recall application filed by petitioner has been decided by
WRIB No. 1718 of 2026
2
passing detailed order, as such, no interference is required against the
impugned order. He submitted that by the interim order granted in
revision, petitioner who is opposite party in revision, has been restrained
from creating third party interest in respect to the plot in question which
requires no interference by this Court. He placed the finding recorded by
Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the recall application
against the order granting interim protection in the revision filed by
respondent nos. 3 and 4.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that title revision filed by respondent
nos. 3 and 4 is pending before respondent no.2, Deputy Director of
Consolidation and interim protection has been granted during pendency of
revision.
7. It is material to mention that recall application filed on behalf of
petitioner against the interim protection granted in revision has been
decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.2.2026
rejecting the recall application and maintaining the order dated 25.7.2025
granting interim protection during pendency of revision.
8. The perusal of the order dated 18.2.2026 demonstrate that the revision
has been entertained and interim protection has been granted in proper
manner restraining the opposite party from creating third party interest in
respect to the plot in question which requires no interference by this
Court.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2, Deputy Director of
Consolidation District Kannauj to decide the aforementioned revision
after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties
expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
May 6, 2026/Vandana Y.
Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…