Allahabad High Court
SHANKARDASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK SARAN
Holding
The order is a remand order permitting fresh hearing and does not merit quashing; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner Shankardas filed a writ petition under Section 331(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and Land Revenue Act seeking certiorari to quash an order dated 20‑04‑2026 issued by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda in the case of Guljari v. Shankardas & others. The petitioner alleged that the appellate order allowing the appeal and permitting a recall application was passed without recording reasons and was therefore erroneous. The State respondents contended that the order was merely a remand order, causing no prejudice, and that the petitioner retained the right to present his case before the authority. The Court examined the record and held that the impugned order was indeed a remand order allowing a fresh hearing of the recall application, and thus did not contain any legal error. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, though the petitioner was permitted to file detailed objections before the concerned authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 20‑04‑2026 passed by the Commissioner is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of reasons and error in law.
- Whether the order constitutes a mere remand permitting fresh hearing, thereby not warranting certiorari.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act — s. 331(3)
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- remand order
- Section 331(3)
- Uttar Pradesh
- Land Revenue Act
- appeal
- recall application
- prejudice
- objections
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 26375 of 2026
Shankardas
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra, Rajveer Chaurasiya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the petiitner and learned
Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.04.2026
passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda in Case
No.195 of 2015 (Computer Case No.C2015070000195)
(Guljari vs. Shankardas & others), U/s 331(3) of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of one
Guljari has been allowed by the respondent no.2 vide order impugned
without recording any cogent reasons and therefore, has erred in law by
allowing the appeal and permitting the respondents to press the recall
application. He further submits that the said application has also not been
accompanied by any separate application for continuation of appeal.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has
submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the
appellate order is a simplicitor remand order and the petitioner is having
all rights to present this case before the said authority.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, it is clear that the order impugned is a remand order which only
WRIC No. 26375 of 2026
2
permits hearing of the recall application afresh on its merits. Thus, the
petitioner is having liberty to raise all objections including the
maintainability of the application before the said authority.
6. In such above view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no error
in the order impugned and the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a detailed objection before
the concerned authority and if such an objection is filed before the
respondent no.2, the same shall be considered while deciding the
restoration application dated 08.09.2014.
(Vivek Saran,J.)
September 23, 2026
Deepika
Digitally signed by :-
DEEPIKA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…