Allahabad High Court

MUNNA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The petition is dismissed as there is no illegality in the order dated 16 October 2025 and the second appeal is barred under Section 209(e) of the U.P. Revenue Code.

Summary

The petitioners Munna and others challenged two orders: one dated 23 July 2026 dismissing their second appeal as not maintainable under Section 209(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, and another dated 16 October 2025 which remanded the matter back to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate after setting aside an earlier eviction order. They argued that the revenue court lacked jurisdiction to entertain eviction because the land had become "abadi" through construction and required a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Court examined the statutory bar on second appeals, the absence of any Section 143 declaration, and the nature of the land as bhumidhari, relying on the Ajaz Carpets judgment. Finding the statutory provisions clear and no illegality in the Commissioner’s order, the Court upheld the remand and dismissed the petition. Consequently, the revenue court’s jurisdiction to decide the eviction was affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the second appeal filed by the petitioners is maintainable under Section 209(e) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the revenue court has jurisdiction to entertain eviction proceedings on land that has not been declared abadi under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Whether the order dated 16 October 2025 setting aside the earlier eviction order is legally valid.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 134, 207, 208, 209(e), 80
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act — s. 143

Subjects

second appeal
maintainability
revenue court jurisdiction
eviction
abadi land
bhumidhari land
Section 209(e)
Section 143
U.P. Revenue Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 3981 of 2026

Munna And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puja Chauhan, Sanjeev Kumar, Shabina
Kumari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

(SN.29) (Transfer from Court No. 51)

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following
prayers:

"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari
Quashing the impugned order dated 23.07.2026 passed by
respondent no.-2. in Second Appeal no. SA 6027/2025
(Computerized case AL20250531006027 (Munna and others
Vs. state of U.P. and others) U/s 208 of U.P. Revenue code,
2006 and impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by
respondent no.-3 in Appeal no. 1616/2024 (Computerized case
no. C202405000001616 (Mukul Gupta Vs. Munna and others)
U/s 207 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 and further may pleased
to confirming the order dated 7.8.2024 passed by Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gorakhpur
(respondent no.-4) in Suit No. 24655 of 2021 (Computerized
Case No. T202105310324655) (Mukul Gupta Vs. Munna and
others) Under Section- 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."

3. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue
has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable under
WRIB No. 3981 of 2026
2

Section 209 (e) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, which specifically bars
the maintainability of the Second Appeal with a non obstante clause with
regard to the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of the UP Revenue Code
as vide impugned order in the Second Appeal dated 16.10.2025, the
matter was remanded back to the Subordinate Court for adjudication a
fresh.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the
categorical and express provision of Section 209 (e) of the UP Revenue
Code, he is not in a position to demonstrate any illegality in the order
dated 23.07.2026, whereby the Second Appeal of the petitioner was
dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner has also challenged the
order dated 16.10.2025, by the respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 1616 of
2024 (Mukul Gupta vs. Munna and others), whereby the matter was
remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deciding afresh after
setting aside the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 in Suit No. 24655
of 2021 (Mukul Gupta vs. Munna and others).

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Appellate
Court has erroneously passed the order remanding back the matter as the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate has already held on the basis of the spot
inspection that out of total area of 0.3488 hectare of arazi no. 109/1, the
petitioner herein has constructed the house in an area 0.100 hectare and
the rest of the land is an open land and with regard to the same land, the
respondents no. 5 and 6 have already filed a suit for eviction against the
petitioner being Civil Suit No. 3/86 (Smt. Dropadi vs. Savitri Rai and
Others), which is pending adjudication.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the aforesaid land
is an abadi land where house is constructed, therefore, the Revenue
Courts do not have any jurisdiction to pass any eviction order as prayed
on behalf of respondents no. 5 and 6. In such view of the matter, the
remand order dated 16.10.2025 is not sustainable.

7. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajaz
Carpets and Others vs. Birla International Pvt. Ltd. : 2013 4 AWC
WRIB No. 3981 of 2026
3

4286, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:

"From the above it is quite clear that if a suit relating to land
held by bhoomidhar is instituted in a court other than revenue
record (Assistant Collector/S.D.O.) and a question arises
whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes
connected with agricultural then matter has to be referred to
the Assistant Collector. However if in any such suit filed before
the Civil Court or J.S.C.C., there is no dispute that the land is
actually being used for purposes not connected with
agricultural and it is admitted that the land is having
constructed portion and is being used for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes then there will be absolutely
no necessity to refer the matter to the Assistant Collector. The
necessary corollary which follows is that if plaintiff claims and
defendant admits that on an agricultural land constructions
have been made and the same is being used for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes then there will be no
necessity of a certificate under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.L. & R.
Act and the Civil Court or J.S.C.C. or any other Court other
than revenue court will have full jurisdiction to decide the
matter."

8. From the perusal of the order dated 16.10.2025, it is apparent that the
aforesaid land is a bhumidhari land recorded in the name of the
respondents no. 5 and 6 and the petitioner herein is in illegal occupation
of the aforesaid land and he has changed the nature of the land by
constructing the house. There is no declaration under Section 143 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act / Section 80 of the UP
Revenue Code to declare the aforesaid land as abadi land. On the
aforesaid premises, the First Appellate Court has held that the Revenue
Court had jurisdiction to decide the eviction proceedings as initiated by
the predecessor of respondents no. 5 and 6. Accordingly, the order dated
07.08.2024 was set-aside by the First Appellate Authority.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out that
any declaration under Section 143 has ever been made with regard to the
WRIB No. 3981 of 2026
4

land in question. It is undisputed in this case that the said land belongs to
the respondents no. 5 and 6 as bhumidhari land and they are the recorded
owners of the aforesaid land and there is no declaration under Section 143
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act declaring the
aforesaid land as abadi land and from the record it is apparent that the
petitioner himself claims that he has changed the nature of land by raising
the illegal construction without any permission and without any
ownership right on the said property. In such view of the matter, this
Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by
the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur.

10. Accordingly, this Court do not find any good reason to entertain the
instant petition. Accordingly the instant petition is dismissed.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 9, 2026
Shubham Arya

Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…