Allahabad High Court

GULAB SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: KUNAL RAVI SINGH

Holding

The Court declined to quash the revenue proceedings and ordered the petitioners to file objections in the underlying case, thereby disposing of the writ petition.

Summary

Petitioners Gulab Singh and three others filed a writ petition challenging the initiation of proceedings under Sections 104/105 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, alleging that they are not members of the Scheduled Caste and therefore the embargo under Section 98 does not apply. The State, relying on instructions, contended that the petitioners belong to the Baheliya tribe, a Scheduled Caste, and that the proceedings are valid. The petition sought a certiorari and prohibition to quash the case. The Court observed that the petitioners could raise their objections and evidence in the pending revenue case and saw no merit in continuing the writ petition. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh objection within two weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste category for purposes of Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the proceedings under Sections 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are jurisdictionally valid.
Whether the writ petition seeking certiorari and prohibition should be entertained.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 104, 105, 98

Subjects

Scheduled Caste
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 98
Section 104
Section 105
writ of certiorari
writ of prohibition
caste certificate
land transfer embargo
jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27777 of 2026

Gulab Singh And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Suresh
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.

Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent - Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following
relief:

"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the impugned entire proceeding of Case No. 2569 of 2026, computerized
Case No. T202602250102569 under section 104/105 of U.P.R.C.
including report dated 14.11.2025, containing in Annexure No.1 to this
writ petition.

B. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

c. To award cost of this petition."

3. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
proceedings initiated under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 (in short 'Code, 2006') are mala fide and vitiated on the ground that
the petitioners do not belong to the Scheduled Caste category and,
therefore, the sale deed executed by them does not fall under the embargo
put by Section 98 of the Code, 2006. He submits that the petitioners are
WRIC No. 27777 of 2026
2

Kshatriya by caste and have accordingly been issued a caste certificate of
the General category on 06.10.2023, and therefore, by no stretch of
imagination, can they be treated as persons belonging to the Scheduled
Caste category. He submits that the present prayer is for a writ of
prohibition to stop the proceedings, as the same are completely without
jurisdiction.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions, which
are taken on record. On the strength of such instructions, learned Standing
Counsel submits that on a perusal of the revenue record, it is apparent that
the petitioners belong to the Baheliya tribe and, therefore, belong to the
Scheduled Caste category, and as such, the transfer done/ effected by
them is hit by the embargo put by Section 98 of the Code, 2006, and the
proceedings initiated under Sections 104/105 of the Code, 2006 are
justified. He submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
proceedings warranting interference by this Court, and the entire
proceedings should be brought to its logical conclusion and the petitioners
will have ample opportunity to present their case and evidence before the
concerned court to establish their caste.

5. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly
submits that the petitioners would be inclined to appear before the
concerned court in the aforesaid Case No. 2569 of 2026, initiated under
Section 104/105 of the Code, 2006. However, he has confined his prayer
to the extent that the petitioners be permitted to file a detailed objection in
the said case and on the basis of the objections/ evidence so produced
before the concerned court, so the case may be decided.

6. To such prayer being made, learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, it is
directed that the petitioners shall submit a fresh objection, including all
the evidences they want to rely upon, within a period of two weeks from
today. In case such objections are filed within two weeks, the concerned
court shall look into the objections and evidences produced by the
petitioners and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
WRIC No. 27777 of 2026
3

Such exercise shall be carried out expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from the date the objections are filed by the
petitioners.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.)
September 18, 2026
NLY

Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…