Allahabad High Court
NARENDRA SINGH GANGWARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A complainant who is not a party to the revenue proceeding lacks standing to compel the court to expedite the proceeding through a writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Narendra Singh Gangwar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to expedite the decision in case No. 7973 of 2023 (Gram Samaj, Khanpur vs Pramod Kumar, Khanali) under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner argued that the delay in the revenue proceeding caused him prejudice, although he is only the complainant and not a party to that case. The State’s standing counsel raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner lacks locus standi to demand acceleration of a proceeding in which he is not a party. The Court examined the standing issue and concluded that it would not interfere with the pending revenue matter merely on the petitioner’s request. Consequently, the Court declined to issue the writ and disposed of the petition, noting that the case should be decided in accordance with law. The petition was therefore dismissed without any order directing the respondent to set a time‑frame for the pending proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether a complainant who is not a party to a revenue proceeding has locus standi to seek a mandamus for expediting that proceeding under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Writ of Mandamus
- Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code 2006
- Standing
- Expedition of proceedings
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 14595 of 2026
Narendra Singh Gangwar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Kashyap, Anshul Kumar
Singhal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"Issue a Writ in the nature of Mardamax commanding and directing the
Respondent No. 2 to conclude and decide the proceeding of Case no.
7973 of 2023 (Gram Samaj, Khanpur Vs. Pramod Kumar, Khanali) under
section 67 of The U.P. Revenue Code 2006 at the earliest within a
stipulated period of time so fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner is the complainant and is not party to the aforesaid proceedings,
therefore, the proceedings cannot be expedited at his behest.
4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
5. Since the proceedings are pending, it is expected that the same shall be
decided in accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
April 20, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…