Allahabad High Court

SHRINATHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Holding

The High Court will not set aside the appellate Commissioner’s stay order but remands the matter for a detailed determination of the impact on adjoining gatas within four months.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 challenging a stay order issued by the appellate Commissioner, who had admitted an appeal by respondent No. 4 and stayed the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order allowing measurement of gata No. 99. The Sub‑Divisional Officer had found that the measurement would not affect adjoining gatas, but the appellate Commissioner observed that the adjoining gatas, recorded as abadi, might suffer a loss of easementary rights. The petitioner argued that the stay was unsustainable in view of the lower authority’s findings, while the respondents contended that the appellate Commissioner’s observations were correct. The High Court declined to interfere with the stay order, but directed the appellate Commissioner to carefully review the record and determine whether the rights of the appellant and other tenure‑holders are affected, and to decide the appeal on its merits within four months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the appellate Commissioner’s stay order is sustainable in view of the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s finding that adjoining gatas are not affected.
Whether the rights and easementary interests of tenure‑holders of adjoining gatas are prejudiced by the measurement of gata No. 99.
Whether the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 is maintainable and the grant of stay appropriate.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24

Subjects

Section 24
U.P. Revenue Code
stay order
appellate commissioner
easement rights
land measurement
gatas
adjoining tenure holders
maintainability of appeal
high court writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34394 of 2026

Shrinath
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 13 others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Munna Tiwari, Shivam Kumar
Modanwal

Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondents and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel appearing for
the Gaon Sabha.

2. The petitioner filed proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, in which respondent no. 4 as well as proforma respondents
were opposite parties. The dispute was in respect of gata no. 99 and
though the respondents were parties to the proceedings, the petitioner's
contention was that rights of the respondents would not be affected by the
proceedings.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Padrauna, Kushinagar allowed
the proceedings by order dated 30.10.2025 and also recorded a finding
that from the exercise of measurement of gata no.99, no other tenure-
holder of the adjoining gatas was being affected.

4. The said order was challenged in appeal at the instance of respondent
no. 4 only and the appellate Commissioner, by the impugned order dated
22.04.2026, has admitted the appeal and stayed operation of the order
dated 30.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admission/stay order is
WRIC No. 34394 of 2026
2

unsustainable in view of the findings recorded by the first authority that
no other person of the adjoining gata would be affected.

6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned
counsel for Gaon Sabha submit that appellate Commissioner has recorded
findings that gata no. 99 is surrounded by other gatas, which are recorded
as abadi and, therefore, contention advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is not correct.

7. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the order dated 22.04.2026
impugned in this petition, wherein an observation has been made by the
appellate Commissioner that prima facie on account of non-facilitating
the easementary rights to the tenure holders of the adjoining gatas, they
are suffering, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order
impugned and, hence, prayer to that effect stands refused.

8. At the same time, considering the findings recorded in the order
impugned in the appeal, filing of the appeal by one of the several persons,
an application/objections filed by the petitioner on 06.04.2026, wherein
the very maintainability of appeal and grant of stay has been challenged
and the second prayer made in the writ petition, the petition is disposed of
with the following directions:

(i) The appellate Commissioner shall carefully peruse the
record of proceedings to arrive at a conclusion whether, from
the measurement exercise directed by the first authority, the
rights and interest of the appellant (respondent no. 4 herein) are
at all affected or not.

(ii) The appeal shall be decided on merits dealing with the said
aspect of the matter within a period of four months from the
date a certified copy of this order is produced before the
appellate Commissioner and after providing opportunity of
hearing to all the concerned parties.

9. It is made clear that observations made in this order are prima facie in
nature as the respondent no. 4 is not before this Court at the moment and,
hence, the exercise to be undertaken by the appellate Commissioner
WRIC No. 34394 of 2026
3

would be based on his own wisdom and record proceedings as well as
submissions made before him.

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
September 8, 2026
Sazia

Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…