Allahabad High Court
BABULALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A writ of certiorari cannot be issued to quash the revenue proceeding when preliminary objections are pending, and the petition must be disposed of with a direction to decide those objections.
Summary
The petitioner, Babulal, challenged the initiation of a revenue case (Case No. 5206 of 2025) against him before the Tehsildar of Mahawan, alleging that the proceeding was instituted under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without jurisdiction and was non‑maintainable. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and mandamus directing the Tehsildar to halt the case and decide his preliminary objections on maintainability. The Court noted the recent decision in K. Valarmathi v. Kumarsan (2025 INSC 606), which held that a plaint or proceeding cannot be quashed under Article 226/227. Since the petitioner had already filed objections that were pending before the Tehsildar, the Court found no merit in entertaining a separate writ petition. Consequently, without addressing the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent (the Tehsildar) to consider and decide the pending objections after hearing the parties. The order effectively dismissed the writ petition while preserving the petitioner’s right to have his objections heard.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226/227 can be issued to quash a revenue proceeding pending before a Tehsildar.
- Whether the Tehsildar has jurisdiction to entertain the case instituted under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
- Whether the pending preliminary objections filed by the petitioner preclude the maintenance of a separate writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 26
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- maintainability
- certiorari
- mandamus
- preliminary objections
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Article 226
- Article 227
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17962 of 2026
Babulal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Sarvesh
Kumar Pandey
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 records.
2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the entire proceedings of Case No. 5206 of 2025 (Computerised Case No.
T202501500505206), titled Khemraj Singh vs. Babulal, purportedly
instituted under Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending
before the Court of the learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahawan, District
Mathura.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
the learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura, not to proceed
further in the aforesaid case, being wholly without jurisdiction, non-
maintainable, and in violation of settled principles of law.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus.
commanding the concerned authorities to decide the preliminary
objections filed by the Petitioner regarding maintainability of the
proceedings, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated
time."
3. In view of judgment passed in K. Valarmathi v. Kumarsan reported in
2025 INSC 606 passed in SLP (C) No. 21466 of 2024 decided on
WRIC No. 17962 of 2026
2
29.04.2025, a plaint or proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of power
under Article 226/227.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already
filed objections to the proceedings.
5. Since the objections filed by the petitioner are pending, no useful purpose
would be served in keeping this petition pending.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of
finally with a direction to respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the
aforementioned objections of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 7, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…