Allahabad High Court
KAILASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The petition for mandamus cannot be entertained under Article 226 and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Kailash, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the revenue authorities to demarcate a plot allotted to his father and to grant him peaceful possession as per a 1973 lease. He claimed the plot, recorded as banjar in revenue records, was allotted to his father but not reflected in the records, leading to interference by authorities. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the Sub‑Divisional Officer on 14‑11‑2025 requesting demarcation and passage. The State respondents argued that no interference was required because the plot remained recorded as banjar and the petitioner had no legal title. The Court held that the prayer for mandamus could not be entertained under its jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without any order against the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 to direct revenue authorities to demarcate a plot and grant possession.
- Whether the petitioner has a legal right to possession of land recorded as banjar in revenue records.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- land revenue
- agricultural allotment
- banjar land
- possession
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30488 of 2026
Kailash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Chandra
Shekher Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Pratap
Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the
representation of the petitioner with regard to his peaceful
possession as per the residential lease dated 25.11.1973."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that agricultural allotment
was made in favour of petitioner's father in respect to the plot
which was recorded as banjar in the revenue records. He
submitted that petitioner came in possession of the said plot but
the name of the petitioner's father has not been recorded over the
plot in question on the basis of allotment, as such, the authorities
have started interference with the right of the petitioner. He
submitted that petitioner has filed application/representation before
the Sub Divisional Officer, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar with the
prayer that revenue authorities should demarcate the plot in
question and provide passage to the petitioner in respect to the
allotment made in favour of petitioner. He submitted that the Sub
Divisional Officer be directed to consider the petitioner's
application/representation dated 14.11.2025 within a time bound
WRIC No. 30488 of 2026
2
period.
4. On the other hand, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-
respondents submitted that no interference is required in the
matter as petitioner has not been recorded over the plot in question
rather the plot in question is recorded as banjar.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.
6. The prayer made in the instant writ petition for mandamus,
cannot be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
7. No interference is required in the matter.
8. The writ petition is dismissed.
September 21, 2026
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…