Allahabad High Court

GAYA PRASAD AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The High Court held that, in the interest of justice, it may issue a mandamus directing the Additional Commissioner to dispose of the pending appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 within a stipulated period, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Summary

Petitioners Gaya Prasad and two others filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to stay their appeal (No. C202602000001082) under Section 207 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 and to maintain status quo over a disputed 1.4950‑hectare property. The appeal, along with an interim relief application, is pending before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division. The Court noted that the appeal is pending and, in the interest of justice, ordered the Commissioner to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months of the certified copy of the order, without unnecessary adjournments. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the appeal and disposed of the writ petition with the direction to dispose of all pending applications in the appeal. The order thus provides a mandamus directing timely disposal but does not grant a stay or alter the substantive rights of the parties.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the revenue authority to decide a pending appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 within a fixed time‑frame.
Whether a stay of the appeal and a status‑quo order over the disputed property can be granted in the writ petition.

Legislation cited

U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 — s. 207
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116

Subjects

mandamus
stay application
expeditious disposal
revenue appeal
status quo
U.P. Land Revenue Act
high court writ

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33501 of 2026

Gaya Prasad And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Prakash Mishra, Sanjeev Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.

Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Additional
Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj as respondent
no.7 in the writ petition during course of the day.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Vijay Pratap Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
decide the stay application of the petitioners in Appeal
No.C202602000001082 (Gaya Prasad and others vs. Ramdhani
and others) filed by the petitioners under section 207 U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 2006 as well as to decide the appeal of the
petitioners bearing No.C202602000001082.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to
maintain status quo over the property in dispute Gata No.686,
Area 1.4950 hectare till the pendency of the Stay Application."

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that appeal under Section
207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioners
against the judgement passed in the proceeding under Section 116 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with the prayer for interim relief is
pending before respondent no.7, Additional Commissioner (Judicial),
WRIC No. 33501 of 2026
2

Prayagraj Division Prayagraj since 27.5.2026. He submitted that
appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of pending
application for interim relief in the appeal within time bound period.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for
the petitioners and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 207 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioners along with
the prayer for interim relief is pending before respondent no.7,
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj.

8. Considering the circumstances of the case, the interest of justice
requires that pending appeal should be decided expeditiously.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition
stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.7,
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj to
consider and decide the aforementioned appeal in accordance with
law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from
the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is further
directed that all the pending applications in the aforementioned
appeal should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law
before deciding the aforementioned appeal.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 11, 2026
Vandana Y.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…