Allahabad High Court
SRI NATH AND 2 OTHERversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The court directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision case within three months after hearing, thereby restraining any dispossession of the petitioners' land.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the revenue officials (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) not to dispossess them of the disputed land and to restrain any coercive action while a revision case (REC/1804/2019) is pending before the Board of Revenue. They also asked the court to order the Board (Respondent No. 2) to decide the revision case expeditiously. The petitioners argued that their recall application and a delay‑condonation petition filed in 2019 are still pending, and therefore any action by the Lekhpal to cancel the allotted plots is unjustified. The court noted that the recall application has been pending for over six years, but the pending status nonetheless bars the Lekhpal from proceeding. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing Respondent No. 2 to decide the revision case within three months after hearing the parties, and to pass an appropriate order on the recall application.
Issues considered
- Whether the revenue officials can proceed with dispossession of the petitioners' land while a recall application and delay‑condonation petition are pending.
- Whether the court should direct the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision case expeditiously.
Subjects
- land dispute
- revision petition
- recall application
- mandamus
- delay condonation
- revenue law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 2194 of 2026
Sri Nath And 2 Other
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 4 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh, Shiva Kant
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State. Sri Rameshwar
Prasad Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed following reliefs:-
"A) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent No. 4 and 5 to not to dispossess the Petitioners from land in question and
not to take any coercive action against them during the pendency of Case No.
REC/1804/2019 (Computerized Case No. AL20191506001804) before Board of
Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj/Respondent No. 2.
B). To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent No. 2 to decide the Case No. REC/1804/2019 (Computerized Case No.
AL20191506001804) expeditiously and in time bound manner as fixed by Hon'ble
Court."
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision
filed by the petitioners was decided ex-parte by the order dated 28.2.2014
against which the petitioners have filed a recall application, which is
pending consideration before the respondent no.2. As the recall
application was filed alongwith an application for delay condonation,
Case No.REC/1804/2019 registered before the respondent no.2 is pending
disposal on the delay condonation application. It has been further
contended that Lekhpal has issued notice to the revisionist-petitioners for
WRIB No. 2194 of 2026
2
vacation of the allotted plots to them, whose cancellation is subject matter
of the Revision No.25 of 2007-08.
4. As the recall application filed by the petitioners is pending
consideration and the application for condonation of delay has not yet
been allowed, the action of Lekhpal cannot be said to be unjustified.
However, as the recall application was filed way back in 2019, its
pendency for the last more than six years is also justified.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction upon the respondent no.2 to decide the Case No.REC/1804/2019
on the recall application of the petitioners, by passing appropriate order,
in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this order.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 18, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…