Allahabad High Court
KAMAL SEN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK SARAN
Holding
The Court held that there is no error in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Summary
Petitioner Kamal Sen Singh filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash orders dated 31‑05‑2025 and 25‑11‑2024 issued by the District Magistrate and Assistant Collector, Jaunpur, under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, alleging that the inspection report was ex parte and that he was not present. The State contended that the petitioner had admitted encroaching upon 0.004 hectare of pond land, and the proceedings were expedited under PIL No. 481 of 2023. The Court observed that the petitioner's own admission precludes him from disputing the correctness of the inspection report and the order. Consequently, the Court found no error in the impugned orders and noted that the petitioner may seek an exchange remedy with the concerned authority. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order passed under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 can be quashed on the ground that the inspection report was ex parte.
- Whether the petitioner's admission of encroachment bars challenge to the order.
- Whether the Court can direct a status‑quo or mandate an exchange remedy in the land dispute.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(5)
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- land encroachment
- U.P. Revenue Code
- section 67(5)
- ex parte inspection
- status quo
- exchange remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17913 of 2026
Kamal Sen Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Pandey, Ashish Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following
reliefs: -
"i- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated 31-5-2025 passed Respondent No.2/District Magistrate
Jaunpur in Case No. 5049/2024 Computer Case No. D202414360005049
(Kamal Sen Vs. State of U.P. and others) under section 67 (5) of U.P.
Revenue Code 2006 and order dated 25-11-2024 passed by Respondent
No.2/Assistant Collector-Ist/Tehsildar Kerakat, Jaunpur in case
00157/2020 Case No. No. computer T202014360500157 (Lekhpal Report
vs. Kamal u/s 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Annexure No.1 and 2).
ii- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the
parties to maintain status quo on spot over the Plot No.1107/040 Hectare
situated at Village Kachhawan Pargana and Tehsil Kerakat, District
Jaunpur."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither Assistant
Collector (1st Class), nor Collector, Jaunpur while deciding the appeal
had considered the objections of the petitioner in their correct perspective.
He further submits that the petitioner was not even present when the
inspection was done and on the basis of which, the report dated
WRIC No. 17913 of 2026
2
20.01.2019 was prepared and therefore, the entire order which is based on
an ex parte report, is not sustainable.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel representing the State
respondents, submits that the petitioner himself admits to have
encroached upon 0.004 hectares of land of Gata No. 1107M, which is
recorded as a pond (gaddha) and the proceedings have been expedited
pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2023, passed in PIL No. 481 of 2023
(Chhaya Singh vs. State of U.P.).
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner himself
admits to have encroached upon the land, it is not open for him to dispute
the correctness of the order or the inspection report. This fact of
admission has also been taken note in the order of Collector, Jaunpur
dated 31.05.2025, which is as under: -
"चूंिक आ०नं० 1107 िम० का रकबा बहुत छोटा है और न जानकारी में िनमार्ण हो गया है तो
अपीलकतार् खुद बगल में सटी अपनी आ०नं० 1117 में से उतना रकबा देने को तैयार है जैसा
िक माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के अपने अनेक िनणर्यों में मत ्ि्व िकया है।"
6. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order
impugned. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek such remedy
of exchange as he has pleaded before the authority concerned.
7. The petition stands disposed of.
(Vivek Saran,J.)
May 6, 2026
Jaideep/-
Digitally signed by :-
JAIDEEP BANERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…