Allahabad High Court

BHAWANI PRASAD TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The S.D.M.’s order rejecting the impleadment application is void and is quashed; the petitioner’s application for impleadment under section 38(1) is allowed.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhawani Prasad Tiwari, filed a writ petition challenging the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate’s (S.D.M.) order dated 29 July 2026 that rejected his application for impleadment as an interested party in a revenue proceeding under section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Board of Revenue, on remand dated 17 November 2025, had expressly directed that all parties with any interest in the disputed land be heard before any final order. The petitioner argued that he claimed ownership and had a construction on the land, and also had a pending civil suit for injunction, thus warranting his inclusion. The High Court examined the Board’s directive and held that the S.D.M. had no justification to deny the impleadment, rendering its order void. Consequently, the Court quashed the S.D.M.’s order and allowed the petitioner’s impleadment application, directing the S.D.M. to hear all parties and pass an appropriate order. The petition was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate could lawfully reject the petitioner’s application for impleadment under section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 despite the Board of Revenue’s directive to hear all interested parties.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38(1)

Subjects

impleadment
section 38
U.P. Revenue Code
revenue law
writ petition
void order
Board of Revenue
property dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 32013 of 2026

Bhawani Prasad Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

Court No. - 34

Sl. No. 384 (Transfer of Court No. 37)

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Shri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Mewa Lal Gupta, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
None appears on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by
the judgement and order dated 29.7.2026 passed by the S.D.M. whereby
his application for impleadment dated 25.5.2026 filed by the petitioner to
be impleaded as aggrieved/interested party in the proceedings pending
before the S.D.M. under section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
after remand from the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 17.11.2026,
has been rejected.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 17.11.2025
while remanding the matter back, the Board of Revenue has categorically
observed that all the parties concerned are required to be heard after due
notice, evidence, arguments and only then the final order shall be passed
by the S.D.M. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner claims his right over the property in question and also claims
that he is having the construction over the said land in question and has
also filed suit for injunction in the civil court, which is also pending with
regard to the same property. In such view of the matter, it would have
been appropriate for the S.D.M. to at-least implead the petitioner as a
party and decide the proceedings. The operative portion of the order
WRIC No. 32013 of 2026
2

dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Baord of Revenue reads as under:

"5. तहसीलदार द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 18.07.2023 को सभी पक्षों को सुनकर, पारित
हुआ था। इसे धारा 38 (1) में नहीं बदला जा सकता। उपजिलाधिकारी का आदेश
क्षेत्राधिकार-विहीन है। उपजिलाधिकारी ने जिस अधिकार प्रयोग किया जो धारा 38 (1) प्रदान
नहीं करती। अतः आदेश शून्य (VOID) अवैध तथा निरस्त किए जाने योग्य है। निगरानी
स्वीकार की जाती है। उपजिलाधिकारी, ज्ञानपुर द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 25.07.2024
निरस्त किया जाता है। वाद उपजिलाधिकारी न्यायालय को इस निर्देश के साथ प्रत्यावर्तित
किया जाता है कि सभी पक्षकारों को नोटिस, साक्ष्य, बहस तथा वसीयत /विक्रयपत्र /
अधिकारों की वैधानिक जाँच करके गुण दोष पर वाद का निस्तारण यथाशीघ्र करें। सभी
पक्षकार नियत तिथि पर सक्षम न्यायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित हों।"

4. From perusal of the aforesaid order it is apparent that the intent of the
order is clear that all the parties concerned having any interest in the
property in question are required to be heard by the S.D.M. In such view
of the matter, this Court does not find any justification in rejecting the
impleadment application filed by the petitioner vide order dated
29.7.2026.

5. For the aforesaid reason the impugned order dated 29.7.2026 is hereby
quashed and the impleadment application dated 25.5.2026 filed by the
petitioner is hereby allowed. The S.D.M. concerned is directed to pass
the appropriate order after hearing all the concerned parties, as directed by
the Board of Revenue.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 14, 2026
o.k.

Digitally signed by :-
OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…