AKHILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - B No. - 3742 of 2026

Akhilesh Kumar
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)               :    Niraj Tiwari, Rohit Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)               :    C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the
respondent no. 2, dated 24.6.2026 and the order of the respondent no. 3,
dated 5.3.2025.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his father
late Akshaywar purchased plot nos. 15, 33 & 34, total area 2.13 acre from
its recorded bhumidhar late Ganesh. By the order dated 27.7.1987, on the
basis of the sale deed, the name of Akshaywar was recorded in the
revenue records, however, the name of Ganesh was not expunged.
Subsequently, after death of Ganesh, the names of his sons, the
respondent nos. 5 & 6, were recorded.

4. Coming to know about the discrepancy in the revenue records, the
petitioner moved an application before the Deputy District Magistrate,
Sadar, District Varanasi, under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 for its correction. The said application was rejected on the ground
that as entries are from quite a long time, it is not justified to be modified.
Against the order of the Deputy Collector, Revenue, Varanasi, dated
5.3.2025, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent no. 2, which
is pending as Case No. 2422 of 2025.

5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that due to continuing names of
respondent nos. 5 & 6 in the revenue records, contrary to the sale deed
                                                          WRIB No. 3742 of 2026
                                2


dated 21.3.1964, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 are negotiating the sale of the
property. However, the stay application filed by the petitioner in Revision
No. 2422 of 2025, has been rejected on the ground that the original sale
deed was not produced and the matter was directed to be listed for final
disposal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as there was no
occasion to produce the original sale deed in the revision filed by the
petitioner, unless an order is passed summoning the sale deed. Moreover,
the report of the Lekhpal categorically states that the entire area of plot
nos. 15, 33 and 34, which was subject matter of the sale deed, had been
transferred in favour of the father of the petitioner, therefore, the rejection
of the stay application was not justified. It has further been contended that
despite the case being listed for final hearing it has not been disposed of
till date.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
opposed the prayer of the petitioner for interfering with the interim order
rejecting the stay application by the respondent no. 2 during pendency of
the Revision No. 2422 of 2025. It is contended that any finding recorded
on the merits of the case would preempt the order to be passed by the
respondent no. 2 while deciding the revision on merits.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the order dated 5.3.2025 is under challenge in
revision before the respondent no. 2, whose validity cannot be determined
by this Court at this stage. The subject matter of sale deed and the area
under transfer can be considered by the respondent no. 2 at the time of
final hearing of the revision. However, despite the dates for final disposal
of the revision having been fixed, matter could not be decided, the
apprehension of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 5 & 6 may create
third party interest, is not misplaced.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with
the direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide Revision No.
2422 of 2025, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after
                                                                                            WRIB No. 3742 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    hearing all the concerned parties, within a period of four months from the
                                    date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided
                                    that till disposal of revision, none of the parties shall create third party
                                    interest in the land in dispute.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Ranjeet Sahu




Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad