DHARMPAL GAUTAM AND 2 OTHERSversusBOARD OF REVENUE UP AT ALLAHABAD AND 33 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 4053 of 2026

Dharmpal Gautam And 2 Others
                                                          .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And 33 Others
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Mahabir Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Mahabir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri A. C.
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders of
respondent nos. 1 and 3, dated 18.05.2026 and 10.11.2025, respectively,
arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners and their predecessor in interest were co-tenure holder of
Shridevi wife of Jawahar Lal, having 1/2 share in the land in dispute. On
the death of Shridevi, the petitioners inherited her share as she died
issueless. However, a claim has been set up by the contesting respondents
on the basis of sale deed dated 22.10.1974, allegedly executed by Shridevi
in favour of their predecessor in interest. Shridevi died on 16.09.1974,
therefore, the alleged sale deed dated 22.10.1974 has been executed by an
imposter. The said fact was duly considered by the Tehsildar and after
relying on the material available on record held that the sale deed dated
22.10.1974 is a fraudulent document and directed that the names of
petitioners be recorded. The order of Naib Tehsildar dated 13.10.2025
was illegally recalled by his subsequent order dated 10.11.2025 on the
application moved by respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is further contended that
the respondent no. 1 while allowing the revision of the petitioners,
challenging the order dated 10.11.2025, though has set aside the said
                                                                                            WRIB No. 4053 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    order, has restored the restoration application of the contesting
                                    respondents to be decided afresh, even though they have no right in the
                                    land in dispute as their basis of claim on the sale deed dated 22.10.1974
                                    has admittedly been executed after the death of Shridevi.

                                    4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent
                                    no. 1 has erred in partly allowing the revision, whereas the entire
                                    proceeding and the order dated 13.10.2025 was liable to be set aside as
                                    the contesting respondents have no right in the land in dispute.

                                    5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
                                    petitioner and perused the record.

                                    6. The basis of claim of the contesting respondents is sale deed dated
                                    22.10.1974. Perusal of order dated 13.10.2025 shows that on 12.10.1974
                                    itself a deposit for issuance of Bhumidhar Sanad was made on behalf of
                                    Shridevi and the sale deed was executed. There is nothing on record to
                                    show that any Bhumidhari Sanad was subsequently granted in favour of
                                    Shridevi or the sale deed dated 22.10.1974 was challenged before any
                                    competent court or authority. All these matters require consideration for
                                    ignoring a registered document of sale.

                                    7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the remand of proceeding to be decided
                                    afresh by the respondent no. 1 is justified and does not require any
                                    interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
                                    of the Constitution of India. No perversity in the order dated 18.05.2026
                                    is shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, no interference
                                    in the matter is required.

                                    8. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Ashok Kr.




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