MOHIUDDEEN AND 3 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 653 of 2026

Mohiuddeen And 3 Others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Adya Prasad Tewari
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Ashutosh Mishra, Navnath Pandey,
                                 Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, C.S.C., Rishi
                                 Bhushan Jauhari, Sudhanshu Pandey,
                                 Sudhir Bharti

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

1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4
and 5, Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed challenging the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the
learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision
No. 173 of 2026, Abdul Hakeem Vs. Mohiuddeen and others, whereby
the revision preferred by respondent no.4 has been allowed and the orders
passed by the authorities below have been set aside, with the matter being
remanded for fresh adjudication.

3. The dispute has its genesis in proceedings instituted by late Rahman
under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act in respect of the land situate at Village Bargo, Tappa and Pargana
Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. The original suit was instituted
on 18.11.1980. Respondent no.4 is the son of late Akbar, who was
arrayed as a defendant in the said proceedings.

4. During the pendency of the original proceedings, a statement attributed
to late Akbar was recorded on 25.02.1982. Thereafter, a compromise
dated 30.06.1982 was relied upon by the parties and, on the basis thereof,
                                                         WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                               2


the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 06.12.1982. The writ
petitioners have relied upon the said compromise and decree and have
placed on record subsequent proceedings arising out of the same
litigation.

5. It appears that thereafter the father of respondent no.4 moved an
application dated 12.09.1989 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking
recall of the judgment and decree dated 06.12.1982. The said application
was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Gorakhpur by order
dated 31.12.1991. A review application was thereafter filed and was
dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 08.01.1993. The
record further discloses that respondent no.4, after a considerable lapse of
41 years, moved an application dated 15.02.2023 seeking
recall/restoration of the proceedings. The said application was dismissed
by the Assistant Collector, First Class/Additional City Magistrate (First),
Gorakhpur by order dated 03.10.2025. An appeal preferred against the
said order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration), First, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur by order dated
06.01.2026.

6. Respondent no.4 thereafter approached the Board of Revenue by filing
Revision No. 173 of 2026. The revision was instituted on 13.01.2026 and
came to be decided by the impugned order dated 02.02.2026. The
petitioners contend that the Board, without summoning the records of the
courts below and without adequately adverting to the findings recorded
therein, set aside the orders dated 06.12.1982, 31.12.1991, 08.01.1993,
03.10.2025 and 06.01.2026 and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has
been passed in undue haste. According to him, the Board did not summon
the complete lower court record and proceeded substantially upon the
material placed before it at the revisional stage. It is submitted that the
subordinate authorities had already considered the application for
restoration and the appeal arising therefrom and had recorded their
respective findings, whereas the Board, without undertaking an
appropriate examination of the said findings and the record, proceeded to
interfere with the orders passed over a long period of time.
                                                       WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                              3


8. It is further submitted that respondent no.4's father had himself
participated in the original proceedings and a statement was recorded on
25.02.1982. The compromise dated 30.06.1982 was followed by the
judgment and decree dated 06.12.1982. It is argued that the subsequent
applications under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., review proceedings and the
proceedings culminating in the orders dated 31.12.1991 and 08.01.1993
constitute an important part of the procedural history, which ought not to
have been disturbed without examination of the original record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the
fact that the application for restoration was filed after an extraordinary
lapse of time, i.e. on 15.02.2023 in respect of a decree dated 06.12.1982.
The application was dismissed by the competent authority on the ground
of delay and non-maintainability, and the appeal therefrom was also
dismissed. It is submitted that the Board ought to have examined the
findings of the subordinate authorities instead of mechanically remitting
the matter.

10. It is also submitted that the allegations relating to fraud,
impersonation, incorrect parentage, defective service and the genuineness
of the thumb impression and compromise involve disputed questions of
fact, which cannot appropriately be concluded in revisional proceedings
without a proper examination of the original record and evidence. The
petitioners refer to the reports/opinions concerning the disputed thumb
impression and contend that the same had been relied upon by respondent
no.4 at a belated stage. The rejoinder affidavit also asserts that the
findings of the Assistant Collector dated 31.12.1991 had already dealt
with the relevant allegations concerning the thumb impression and the
documents attributed to late Akbar.

11. The principal submission, however, is that several objections now
being advanced by respondent nos. 4 and 5 concerning the very
jurisdiction and maintainability of the original proceedings were not the
issues upon which the authorities below had adjudicated the matter. It is
urged that these objections have been introduced for the first time in the
counter affidavit filed before this Court.
                                                          WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                                4


12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 has
opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the impugned order does not
finally adjudicate the rights of the parties but merely restores the matter to
the stage where the foundational issues can be properly examined.
According to learned counsel, the Board did not declare respondent no.4
to be the owner of the disputed property, nor did it finally accept the
allegations of fraud; rather, it directed that the dispute be tested after the
parties are afforded opportunity to lead evidence.

13. It has been argued that the original decree dated 06.12.1982 is itself
surrounded by serious circumstances requiring examination. Respondent
nos. 4 and 5 allege that late Akbar did not reside at the address mentioned
in the plaint and that the description of his parentage and residence was
incorrectly recorded. It is contended that the alleged service of summons,
appearance, authority of counsel, statement attributed to Akbar and
execution of the compromise are all matters requiring proof from the
original record. Respondent no. 4 has also questioned the genuineness of
the thumb impression attributed to his father and has relied upon expert
material in support of his challenge.

14. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 has further submitted that
the compromise dated 30.06.1982 cannot be mechanically accepted,
particularly when, according to the respondents, the participation and
consent of all necessary parties and the State authorities have not been
established. It is also contended that the requirements of Order XXIII
Rule 3 C.P.C. and other statutory provisions required examination. The
respondents contend that the issue whether the compromise was
genuinely executed by the person concerned and whether it was acted
upon in accordance with law is a matter requiring evidence and cannot be
foreclosed at the threshold.

15. A further submission made on behalf of the respondents is that the suit
itself was not maintainable for want of compliance with mandatory
statutory requirements. In particular, it has been urged that the necessary
notice under Section 80 C.P.C., notice under Section 106 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, and the requirements contemplated under Section
34(5) of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 were not duly complied with.
                                                         WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                               5


Respondent no.5 has specifically pleaded that the suit under Section 229-
B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not maintainable in the absence of
compliance with the aforesaid provisions.

16. It has also been submitted that the State Government and the Gaon
Sabha were necessary parties and that the absence of their proper
participation/notice went to the root of the jurisdiction of the court which
entertained the original proceedings. The respondents have relied upon
the alleged absence of postal receipts or other material evidencing service
of the statutory notices.

17. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has further contended that the
dispute involves allegations of fraud, impersonation and fabricated
documents and that the petitioners cannot seek to prevent an adjudication
of such allegations merely by invoking the passage of time. It is submitted
that the Board was exercising revisional jurisdiction to correct what it
considered to be a failure on the part of the subordinate authorities to
examine issues going to the root of the original decree. The respondents
maintain that the remand order causes no final prejudice to the petitioners,
since they will have full opportunity to establish service, appearance,
authority, execution of the compromise and the subsequent revenue
entries.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents has also argued that the mere fact
that the revision was decided within a short period cannot, by itself,
establish haste or illegality. It is submitted that the petitioners were
represented by counsel and no specific request for summoning any
particular record was made before the Board. It is further urged that the
Board's order is a remand order and, therefore, the parties retain full
opportunity to establish their respective cases before the competent court.

19. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material
placed before this Court, this Court finds that the controversy at this stage
need not be adjudicated on the merits of the allegations of fraud,
impersonation, validity of the compromise, genuineness of the thumb
impression or the ultimate maintainability of the original suit. Those
issues are required to be considered by the competent authority upon the
                                                         WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                               6


basis of the complete record and after affording proper opportunity to all
concerned.

20. There is, however, one aspect which assumes significance. The
counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 raise certain
objections touching the jurisdiction and maintainability of the original
proceedings themselves. In particular, objections have been raised
regarding compliance with Section 80 C.P.C., Section 106 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act and Section 34(5) of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901,
apart from the contention that the suit under Section 229-B of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was not maintainable. These objections have been
specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter
affidavit.

21. The petitioners, in their rejoinder, have disputed the aforesaid
assertions and have relied upon the alleged notice issued to the State
Government and the notice said to have been issued to the Gaon Sabha.
The petitioners contend that the requirement of notice under Section 80
C.P.C. was complied with and that notice under Section 106 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act was also issued. Thus, there is a direct contest between
the parties on these jurisdictional questions.

22. What is material for the purposes of the present writ petition is that
these objections, as now placed before this Court, have not been
considered by the authorities below in the orders which have culminated
in the impugned order. The Assistant Collector, the appellate authority
and, on the material presently available, the Board of Revenue have not
returned a finding upon these specific objections after examination of the
original record and after hearing the parties on the same.

23. Once an objection goes to the very jurisdiction or maintainability of
the original proceedings, it would not be appropriate for this Court, in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to record a final finding thereon for the
first time, particularly when the necessary factual foundation, the original
proceedings and the relevant statutory notices are matters requiring
examination by the competent authority.

24. At the same time, the manner in which the impugned order came to be
                                                          WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                                7


passed also warrants consideration. The revision was instituted on
13.01.2026 and the impugned order was passed on 02.02.2026. The
petitioners have specifically complained that the Board proceeded without
summoning the complete record of the courts below. The Board's order
itself resulted in setting aside a decree and several consequential orders
extending over a period of more than four decades.

25. This Court is conscious that mere expedition in disposal of a revision
cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of illegality. Equally, however, when
a revisional authority is called upon to examine a long-standing decree
and subsequent orders, and the controversy involves allegations
concerning service of summons, appearance, authority of counsel,
execution of a compromise, fraud and the very maintainability of the
original proceedings, the matter ought to be considered upon the complete
record and with due regard to all objections which materially affect
jurisdiction.

26. The respondents are justified to the extent that the allegations raised
by them cannot simply be brushed aside on the ground of their being
belated. If an objection truly goes to the jurisdiction of the court which
passed the original decree, its legal effect has to be determined in
accordance with law. At the same time, the petitioners are equally entitled
to an opportunity to establish their assertion that the requisite notices were
in fact issued and that the original proceedings were otherwise
maintainable.

27. The respondents themselves submit that the remand was intended to
provide an opportunity to both sides to establish their respective cases.
Their counter affidavit specifically states that the petitioners would be
free to prove service, appearance, authority of counsel, execution of the
alleged compromise and the revenue entries, while respondent no.4 would
be free to establish his allegations concerning non-service, residence,
absence of authority, impersonation and expert evidence.

28. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the appropriate
course is not to finally adjudicate any of the aforesaid disputed questions
in the present writ petition, but to remit the matter to the Board of
                                                         WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                               8


Revenue so that all the objections, including the objections newly raised
before this Court touching the jurisdiction and maintainability of the
original proceedings, may be considered by the revisional authority after
examination of the complete record and after affording effective
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

29. Such a course would also meet the principal grievance of the
petitioners regarding the manner in which the impugned order has been
passed. The Board of Revenue is the revisional authority which had
before it the challenge arising from the orders of the subordinate
authorities. It would, therefore, be appropriate that the Board itself
considers the entire matter afresh rather than this Court undertaking an
examination of factual and jurisdictional questions for the first time in
writ jurisdiction.

30. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the allegations of fraud or impersonation, the validity or
otherwise of the compromise dated 30.06.1982, the genuineness of the
signatures or thumb impressions, the question of limitation, the
applicability or compliance with Section 80 C.P.C., Section 106 of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act or Section 34(5) of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901,
or the maintainability of the original suit under Section 229-B of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. All these questions are left open for consideration
by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law.

31. The Board shall summon and examine the complete record of the
proceedings before the subordinate authorities. The Board shall also take
into consideration the pleadings and documents placed before this Court
by the parties, to the extent permissible in law. The respondents'
allegations concerning non-service, impersonation and the alleged defects
in the original proceedings, as well as the petitioners' reply thereto, shall
be considered on their own merits. The relevant procedural history,
including the effect of earlier applications filed by the father of the
respondent no.4 and orders dated 31.12.1991 and 08.01.1993, as borne
out from the material placed on record.

32. Since the objections regarding statutory notices and jurisdiction have
                                                         WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                               9


been raised before this Court and have been specifically disputed by the
petitioners, the Board shall give both sides a reasonable opportunity to
produce and prove the relevant notices, acknowledgments, postal records,
orders and other documents relied upon by them. The Board shall
thereafter record appropriate findings on each objection before deciding
the revision.

33. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

34. The order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Member (Judicial),
Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No. 173 of 2026, Abdul
Hakeem Vs. Mohiuddeen and others, is hereby quashed and set aside.

35. The matter is remanded to respondent no.2, the Board of Revenue,
U.P., Lucknow, for fresh consideration of the revision in accordance with
law. The Board shall summon and consider the complete record of the
proceedings before the courts/authorities below and shall afford full and
effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent
nos. 3 to 5.

36. The Board shall specifically consider all objections raised by
respondent nos. 4 and 5 before this Court concerning the jurisdiction and
maintainability of the original proceedings, including the objections
relating to compliance with Section 80 C.P.C., Section 106 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act and Section 34(5) of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901, as
well as the objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It shall also consider the
petitioners' response to each of the said objections. None of these issues
shall be treated as having been concluded by this Court.

37. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of any of the aforesaid issues. The Board shall decide the revision
independently, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this
judgment, after considering the complete record and the submissions of
all parties.

38. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings arise out of a very old
dispute, the Board of Revenue is requested to endeavour to decide the
                                                                                             WRIB No. 653 of 2026
                                                                   10


                                    matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the
                                    date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to the parties
                                    extending full cooperation.

                                    39. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Ranjeet Sahu




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