Allahabad High Court

RADHEYSHYAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The court disposed the writ, ordering the revision to be heard on the already fixed date of 25 Nov 2026 and prohibiting creation of third‑party interest, without granting the petitioner's mandamus relief.

Summary

The petitioners claim ownership of a parcel of land originally belonging to the deceased Sugia, having obtained mutation in the revenue records, while respondent No.3 (Sriram) asserts title based on a sale deed dated 25‑Jan‑1985, a claim upheld by the Additional Commissioner in 2004. In 2013 respondent No.3 filed a fresh application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, resulting in his name being entered without notice to the petitioners; the petitioners obtained a recall order in May 2018, which was stayed by the Board of Revenue on 4‑July‑2018. The petitioners sought mandamus to stay that interim order, to prevent respondent No.3 from alienating the land, and to compel the Board to decide the revision promptly. The High Court noted that the revision is already scheduled for final hearing on 25‑Nov‑2026 and declined to pre‑pone the date, directing that the matter be finally decided on that date and that the parties refrain from creating any third‑party interest in the land pending disposal. The writ petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the Board of Revenue's interim order staying the recall order should be stayed by mandamus.
Whether respondent No.3 may alienate or create third‑party interest in the disputed land during pendency of the revision.
Whether the court can direct the Board of Revenue to decide the revision within a stipulated time.

Legislation cited

U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 — s. 34

Subjects

land revenue
mutation
revision
mandamus
stay order
third‑party interest
U.P. Land Revenue Act
property dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4163 of 2026

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

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuruddh Chaturvedi, Digambar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

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

1. Heard Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sudhir
Bharti for the respondent no. 4.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-

"a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus staying
the effect and operation of order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Lucknow (Respondent No.2) in Revision No. 1465 of 2018
(Computerized Case No. R20180520001465) 'Sriram Vs. Radheyshyam';

b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing the Respondent No.3 -Sriram, not to alienate
the land in dispute and not to interfere in peaceful possession of the
Petitioners over the land in dispute during the pendency of the Revision
No. 1465 of 2018 before Respondent No.2;

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to decide
Revision No. 1465 of 2018 (Computerized Case No. R20180520001465)
'Sriram Vs. Radheyshyam' within stipulated time as may be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court."

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in
dispute, belongs to one Sugia, who died on 12.2.1984, pursuant to which,
the names of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records on the basis
WRIB No. 4163 of 2026
2

of succession, rejecting the objection of the respondent no. 3, claiming his
right, on the basis of sale deed, dated 25.1.1985. The said order of
mutation was challenged by the respondent no. 3, which was upheld upto
the revisional stage by the order of the Additional Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, dated 26.2.2004, granting liberty to the
respondent no. 3 to get his right declared on the basis of sale deed, dated
25.1.1985.

4. Subsequently, in 2023, a fresh application, under Section 34 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 was moved by the respondent no. 3, on the basis
of which, his name was recorded, without issuing any notice to the
petitioners. When the petitioners came to know about the order dated
15.4.2013, passed in the second round of litigation, they moved a recall
application, which was allowed by the order of the Tehsildar, dated
3.5.2018. The respondent no. 3 challenged the said order in Revision
before the Board of Revenue, in which an interim order was granted on
4.7.2018, admitting the revision and staying the effect and operation of
the order dated 3.5.2018.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners appeared in the aforesaid Revision No. 1465 of 2018 and filed
a stay vacation application alongwith an application for early hearing. The
matter was kept pending and the stay vacation application was not
decided, however, subsequently, in 2026 the matter was finally heard on
29.5.2026 and judgment was reserved.

6. By the orders of the respondent no. 2, dated 24.6.2026 and 17.7.2026,
the case was again listed on the revision and no final orders were passed
and the case was reserved for delivery of judgment. However, by the
order dated 7.8.2026, showing paucity of time, the matter has been
directed to be listed for hearing afresh on 25.11.2026, allowing the
application for early hearing.

7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that during pendency of the
revision, the respondent no. 3 is negotiating sale with third party and has
executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Meena Devi on 21.5.2026.
The approach of respondent no. 2 in lingering the matter would lead to
WRIB No. 4163 of 2026
3

multiplicity of proceedings if the respondent no. 3 executes any sale deed
in favour of third party.

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

9. The perusal of the ordersheet shows that the matter is listed for final
hearing 25.11.2026. As 25.11.2026 has already been fixed in the case,
which is in the knowledge of both the parties, there is no justification in
preponing the date of hearing, however, the respondent no. 2 is directed
that on the next date fixed i.e. 25.11.2026, the revision shall be heard and
decided finally, in accordance with law.

10. In view of the fact that the respondent no. 3 is trying to create third
party interest in the land in dispute, till the disposal of the revision, the
parties are directed not to create third party interest in the land in dispute.

11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 18, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…