Allahabad High Court
AMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The order under Section 67 is invalid absent proper demarcation in the petitioner's presence and the provision of the inspection report, leading to the quashing of the earlier orders and the allowance of the writ petition.
Summary
Amar Singh filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, alleging that the land demarcation was carried out without his presence and that the inspection report was not provided to him. The High Court had earlier directed the State's standing counsel to produce the spot‑inspection report and to confirm whether demarcation was done in the petitioner's presence. The standing counsel failed to furnish the required information, prompting the Court to grant additional time and eventually direct fresh demarcation of the land. Upon compliance, the Court quashed the earlier orders dated 17‑02‑2025 and 12‑12‑2025 and allowed the writ petition, directing that the matter be decided afresh after the petitioner files any objections. The Court also ordered that the status quo be maintained until the fresh proceedings are concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether the order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is valid when demarcation is performed without the petitioner's presence and without furnishing the inspection report.
- Whether the State respondents complied with the Court's directions to produce the spot‑inspection report.
- Whether the earlier orders dated 17‑02‑2025 and 12‑12‑2025 should be set aside and fresh demarcation ordered.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Section 67
- U.P. Revenue Code
- land demarcation
- writ petition
- status quo
- fresh demarcation
- de novo proceedings
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 11886 of 2026
Amar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madan Ji Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Instructions have been submitted by learned Standing Counsel which
are taken on record.
2. On 23.04.2026, following order was passed:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a
supplementary affidavit on 09.04.2026 but the same are not on record.
3. The office is directed to trace out of the same and place it on record.
4. This Court vide order dated 30.3.2026 has passed the order in
following terms :-
"1. It is contended by the petitioner that the order under
Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed
without carrying out the demarcation of the land in question
in the presence of the petitioner and even the report on the
basis of which the proceedings under Section 67 have been
initiated has not been provided to the petitioner.
2. A weeks time is granted to the learned Standing Counsel to
seek instructions in the matter as to whether any report of
spot inspection and demarcation of the land in question was
prepared and as to whether the spot inspection was carried
WRIC No. 11886 of 2026
2
out in the presence of the petitioner. Further as to whether
the copy of the said report was provided to the petitioner or
not.
3. Put up as fresh on 08.04.2026."
5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed the instructions, which are taken
on record. However, the instructions dated 07.04.2026 do not disclose
anything with regard to the report of spot inspection, in respect of which
a specific direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2026.
6. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' further
time to seek better instructions in the matter in terms of the order dated
30.03.2026.
7. List this matter on 07.05.2026, as fresh.
8. In the meantime, as respondent nos. 1 to 3 have failed to provide
proper instructions despite sufficient time granted by this Court, the
parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of listing."
2. In compliance of the order of this Court, fresh demarcations have been
made. Copy of the same may be given to learned counsel for the
petitioner who may file objection.
3. Since fresh demarcations have been made, the de-novo proceedings are
to be initiated, and therefore, order dated 17.02.2025 passed by
respondent no. 3 and order dated 12.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2,
passed earlier, are quashed.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed.
5. However, it is provided that after filing of the objections by the
petitioner, the proceedings may be decided afresh after providing
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 7, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…