RAJENDRA PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS

                                                   Reserved on 03.09.2026
                                                   Delivered on 18.09.2026
             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - B No. - 2259 of 2022

Rajendra Prasad
                                                            …..Petitioner(s)

                                   Versus

State of U.P. and 11 others
                                                          …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)            : Shrey Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)            : Arvind Srivastava, C.S.C., Kunal
                                       Shah, Tarun Jha



                      HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1.        Heard Sri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 9 and Sri Arvind
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos.
2 to 8.

2.        By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed
the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad
in Case No. REW/1743 of 2022, whereby the review application
preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue
in Second Appeal No. 744 of 2019 and the order dated 20.04.2018
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division in Appeal No.
650 of 2015.

3.        The dispute pertains to Plot No. 1957 situated at Mauja, Pargana
and Tehsil Konch, District Jalaun. The petitioner claims his rights
                                     2
                                                    WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

through Kishan Prasad, who, according to the petitioner, was adopted by
Sharda Prasad, the erstwhile recorded Zamindar. The contesting
respondents, on the other hand, claim through Awadh Bihari Lal and
assert that their predecessor and thereafter the respondents have been
recorded in the revenue records and have remained in possession over
the disputed land.

4.    The principal case set up by the petitioner is that the disputed land
was non-Zamindari Abolition (non-ZA) land and continued to be
governed by the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Tenancy Act”). It is contended that the revenue entry
made in favour of Awadh Bihari Lal pursuant to the proceedings
culminating in the order dated 31.03.1984 was illegal, having allegedly
been made without notice to the petitioner's predecessor and without
jurisdiction. The petitioner also disputes the applicability of the U.P.
Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1956”) to the disputed plot.

5.    The contesting respondents have disputed the aforesaid assertions.
According to them, the historical Khataunis establish that Awadh Bihari
Lal was recorded in the revenue records and was in possession of Plot
No. 1957. They further rely upon the Gazette notification dated
24.06.1961 issued under Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and contend that
the area falling within Tehsil Konch was brought within the operation of
the said enactment with effect from 01.07.1961.

6.    The contesting respondents have, in particular, placed reliance
upon the historical revenue records, including the Khatauni of 1356 Fasli
and the subsequent entries, to demonstrate continuity of the entries in
favour of their predecessor and his successors. They have also relied
upon the material concerning the tenure rights claimed by Awadh Bihari
Lal and the subsequent proceedings whereby his name came to be
recorded in the revenue records. The respondents further contend that the
statutory notification dated 24.06.1961 has an important bearing upon
the applicability of the Act of 1956 to the disputed land.
                                    3
                                                  WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

7.    The litigation between the parties has a chequered history. Kishan
Prasad instituted proceedings under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act. The
said proceedings were dismissed on 12.08.1995. The appeal preferred
against the said order was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on
01.10.2007. However, the Board of Revenue, in Second Appeal No. 71
of 2007-08, by order dated 23.11.2007, set aside the appellate order and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

8.    Upon transfer of the proceedings to Moth, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Moth, by order dated 21.07.2015, held the proceedings under
Section 60 of the Tenancy Act to be maintainable. The said order was
challenged by the contesting respondents in Appeal No. 650 of 2015.
The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 20.04.2018, allowed the
appeal and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Moth. While doing so, the Additional Commissioner considered the
historical revenue entries, the material relating to the tenure and
possession claimed by the contesting respondents, the proceedings
culminating in the order dated 31.03.1984 and the statutory provisions
governing the disputed land. The Additional Commissioner also
examined the applicability of the urban Zamindari abolition regime and
concluded that the proceedings instituted under Section 60 of the
Tenancy Act could not be maintained.

9.    The petitioner thereafter preferred Second Appeal No. 744 of 2019
before the Board of Revenue. The Board, by order dated 28.01.2020,
dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the conclusion reached by the
Additional Commissioner. The Board, while considering the second
appeal, specifically examined the effect of the notification issued under
Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and the statutory consequence flowing from
Section 84 thereof. The Board took the view that, in view of the
applicability of the Act of 1956, the provisions of the Tenancy Act were
no longer applicable to the disputed land and consequently the
proceedings instituted under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act could not be
maintained.
                                    4
                                                   WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

10.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has principally submitted that
the authorities below have proceeded upon an erroneous assumption that
Plot No. 1957 was covered by the Act of 1956. It is contended that the
disputed land was never duly demarcated and that no notification under
Section 8 of the Act of 1956 was issued in respect of the particular land
in dispute. It has further been submitted that the revenue entry in favour
of Awadh Bihari Lal was made without notice to the petitioner's
predecessor and that the subsequent proceedings proceeded upon such
erroneous entry.

11.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has also disputed the
correctness of the revenue records relied upon by the contesting
respondents and alleged interpolation therein. It is submitted that the
findings recorded by the authorities below with regard to the nature of
the land and the revenue entries have not been properly considered by
the Board of Revenue. The rejoinder affidavit reiterates the allegation
that the respondents had interpolated the revenue record and disputes the
evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by them.

12.   Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits
that the writ petition essentially seeks reopening of factual issues which
have already been considered by the competent revenue authorities over
a considerable period of time. It is submitted that the historical
Khataunis clearly demonstrate the recording of the name and possession
of Awadh Bihari Lal and thereafter his successors. The respondents
further contend that there is no satisfactory documentary evidence
establishing the alleged adoption of Kishan Prasad by Sharda Prasad.

13.   Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has further
submitted that the Gazette notification dated 24.06.1961 is the material
statutory notification by which the area in question was brought within
the operation of the Act of 1956. He has also drawn the attention of the
Court to the documentary material relied upon by the respondents in
support of the applicability of the Act of 1956 and submits that the
statutory consequences flowing from the notification are sufficient to
                                      5
                                                    WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

demonstrate that the proceedings under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act
were not maintainable. He has also drawn the attention of the
Court to U.A. Form 4 prepared under Rule 14 of the U.P. Urban Areas
Zamindari Abolition Rules, 1956, filed as Annexure CA-20 to the
counter affidavit, and submits that the said document specifically
establishes that Plot No. 1957 was included in the area notified
under Section 8 of the Act of 1956.

14.   Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material
placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy essentially
concerns the applicability of the statutory regime governing the disputed
land and the consequential maintainability of proceedings instituted by
the petitioner under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act. The order dated
20.04.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order dated
28.01.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, though ultimately leading
to the same conclusion, have proceeded upon consideration of the matter
from somewhat different perspectives.

15.   The Additional Commissioner, while deciding Appeal No. 650 of
2015, considered the historical revenue material placed before him,
including the entries in the Khatauni and the material relied upon by the
contesting respondents in support of their possession and tenure rights.
The Additional Commissioner also considered the material concerning
the order dated 31.03.1984 whereby the name of the predecessor of the
contesting respondents came to be recorded and the objections raised by
the petitioner regarding the legality of the said proceedings. The order
further takes note of the statutory provisions governing the disputed land
and the effect of the urban Zamindari abolition regime.

16.   The contention of the petitioner that the disputed land was non-ZA
land and that the provisions of the Tenancy Act continued to apply was
thus considered by the Additional Commissioner in the context of the
material available before him. The Additional Commissioner examined
the historical entries and the rival claims regarding possession and tenure
                                    6
                                                    WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

and came to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 60 of the
Tenancy Act could not be maintained.

17.   The subsequent order of the Board of Revenue dated 28.01.2020,
however, specifically examined the statutory consequence flowing from
the notification dated 24.06.1961 and Section 84 of the Act of 1956. The
Board took the view that once the Act of 1956 became applicable to the
area in question, the provisions of the Tenancy Act ceased to apply and,
consequently, proceedings under Section 60 could not be continued. The
Board thus affirmed the ultimate conclusion of the Additional
Commissioner, though its reasoning principally rested upon the statutory
consequence arising from Section 84 of the Act of 1956.

18.   The contention of the petitioner that Plot No. 1957 was non-ZA
land and was consequently outside the purview of the Act of 1956,
therefore, has to be considered in the light of the statutory notification
and the material available before the authorities. The specific
identification of Plot No. 1957 in U.A. Form 4 is of decisive
significance. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this
Court any material which would establish, in a manner warranting
interference in writ jurisdiction, that the disputed plot was excluded from
the area notified under Section 8 of the Act of 1956. The allegation of
interpolation        in   the     revenue      records,      by      itself,
cannot displace the specific statutory record showing inclusion of
the disputed plot.

19.   Once the applicability of the Act of 1956 to the disputed land is
upheld, the statutory consequences flowing from such applicability
necessarily follow. The Act of 1956 became applicable to the concerned
urban area with effect from the date prescribed in the notification,
namely 01.07.1961. Consequently, the rights and liabilities in respect of
the disputed land thereafter came to be governed by the statutory regime
under the Act of 1956.
                                       7
                                                      WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

20.     Section 84 of the Act of 1956 has an important bearing upon the
controversy. In view of the applicability of the Act of 1956 to the
disputed land, the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 ceased to
apply to such land. The petitioner, therefore, could not maintain
proceedings under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act in respect of Plot No.
1957 after the land had been brought within the operation of the Act of
1956.

21.     The order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Moth, holding the proceedings under Section 60 of the
Tenancy Act to be maintainable, therefore, proceeded upon an erroneous
view of the legal status of the disputed land. The Additional
Commissioner, by order dated 20.04.2018, upon consideration of the
material before him, allowed the appeal and set aside the said order. The
Board of Revenue, while deciding the second appeal, independently
examined the statutory effect of Section 84 of the Act of 1956 and
affirmed the conclusion that the proceedings under the Tenancy Act were
not maintainable.

22.     The petitioner's claim through Kishan Prasad and the assertion
regarding his alleged adoption by Sharda Prasad also do not alter the
position regarding maintainability of the proceedings under Section 60
of the Tenancy Act. Whether or not the petitioner ultimately establishes
the succession or adoption pleaded by him is a matter which does not
confer jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act over land to which that
enactment was no longer applicable. Once the disputed plot is found to
have been brought within the operation of the Act of 1956, proceedings
under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act could not be maintained in respect
thereof.

23.     It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to enter into any wider
adjudication regarding the ultimate title of the parties or to record any
final finding upon the petitioner's claim of adoption, except to the
limited extent necessary for determining the maintainability of the
proceedings under Section 60 of the Tenancy Act. The material relevant
                                     8
                                                   WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

to that question has been considered by the competent authorities and the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional infirmity in the
conclusion reached by them.

24.   In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
this Court is concerned with the legality of the orders under challenge.
Where the competent revenue authorities have considered the material
available on record and applied the statutory provisions to the
controversy, interference is not warranted merely because the petitioner
seeks a different appreciation of the revenue material. In the present
case, the Additional Commissioner considered the factual and revenue
aspects of the controversy, while the Board of Revenue, in the second
appeal, considered the statutory consequence flowing from the
applicability of the Act of 1956.

25.   For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that the conclusion
recorded by the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 20.04.2018,
allowing Appeal No. 650 of 2015 and setting aside the order dated
21.07.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moth, does not
suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. The Board of Revenue, by its
order dated 28.01.2020, rightly considered the effect of Section 84 of the
Act of 1956 and concluded that the proceedings under Section 60 of the
Tenancy Act were not maintainable.

26.   The Board of Revenue also committed no error in dismissing the
review application by order dated 29.06.2022. The grounds raised by the
petitioner in review essentially sought reconsideration of the conclusions
already reached by the Board in the second appeal. No error apparent on
the face of the record or other ground warranting exercise of review
jurisdiction has been demonstrated by the petitioner.

27.   In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition lacks merit.
The orders dated 20.04.2018, 28.01.2020 and 29.06.2022 do not suffer
from any jurisdictional infirmity, perversity or manifest illegality
                                                                      9
                                                                                        WRIB No. - 2259 of 2022

                            warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
                            Constitution.

                            28.         Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

                            29.         There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                                              (Arun Kumar,J.)

                            September 18, 2026
                            Anil




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