Allahabad High Court

MOHD. YUNUS KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK SARAN

Holding

The order dated 18 April 2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for a fresh decision.

Summary

The petitioner challenged an order dated 18 April 2026 issued by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) of Ghazipur, alleging that the order failed to consider objections raised and merely accepted the lekhpal's report. The State's standing counsel argued the order was lawful but conceded that the objections were not discussed in the reasoning. The Court examined the submissions and found that the order indeed lacked a clear discussion of the petitioner’s objections. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent to decide afresh within a month, directing that the merits be addressed in the new order. No merits of the underlying dispute were decided by the Court.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 18 April 2026 validly considered the objections raised by the petitioner
Whether the order should be set aside for failure to discuss the objections and remanded for fresh consideration

Subjects

writ petition
order set aside
procedural fairness
objections
administrative law
High Court
Allahabad
remand

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - C No. - 23854 of 2026

Mohd. Yunus Khan
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Mohd. Aslam Khan, Wasim Masood
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Bhupendra
                                   Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 5
                       HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents, Sri Himanshu Shukla,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the respondent no.4 and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order dated
18.4.2026 has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner and has
simplicitor accepted the report of the lekhpal.

3. Per contra learned Standing Counsel has defended the order by submitting
that it is in consonance with law. However, learned Standing Counsel very
fairly submits that there is no clear discussions of the objections raised by
the petitioner in the reasoning contained in the order impugned. He submits
that the order impugned be set-aside with liberty to the respondent no.2 to
decide the matter afresh.

4. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The order dated 18.4.2026 passed by respondent no.2/Addl.
Collector (Finance & Revenue)/Addl. Collector, Ghazipur is hereby set-
aside.

5. The matter is relegated back to be decided afresh by the respondent no.2
within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of
this order.

6. Since this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter, as such it is
expected from the respondent no.2 to address the merits of the matter while
                                                                   WRIC No. 23854 of 2026
                                                               2


                                    passing the fresh order.

                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Gaurav Kuls
                                                                        (Vivek Saran,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…