Allahabad High Court

GHANSHYAM AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The Court granted interim protection, directing the respondents to maintain the status quo on the disputed land and to decide the pending appeal within three months.

Summary

The petitioners, Ghanshyam and four others, claimed peaceful possession of a 0.114‑hectare plot (Arazi No.151M) in Saurai Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, and filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the land until the disposal of their appeal under Section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, and also directing the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) to decide a stay application under Section 38(4) within a stipulated period. The respondents argued that the plot was recorded as banjar and the petitioners had not proved title. The Court noted that an appeal under Section 38(1) was pending, that revenue records showed the petitioners had been recorded over the plot for a considerable period, and that the case law in Ali Sher v. State of U.P. required a stay of an order with civil consequences pending appeal. Applying this ratio, the Court granted interim protection, directing the respondents to maintain the status quo on possession and to decide the appeal within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order. The writ petition was therefore allowed with directions for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether interim relief in the form of a stay/mandamus should be granted to maintain status quo pending appeal under Section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the petitioners have sufficient title to claim possession of the disputed plot.
Whether the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) must decide the stay application under Section 38(4) within a stipulated period.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38(1), 38(4)

Subjects

interim relief
stay of execution
mandamus
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
section 38
possession
land dispute
status quo
appeal pending

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 38703 of 2026

Ghanshyam And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai,
learned counsel for the Gaon sabha.

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

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in
peaceful possession of the petitioner's Land Arazi No.
151M area 0.114 hectare situated in the village of the
Saurai Khurd Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushmabi, till the
disposal of appeal of the petitioners.

II. Issue a writ order or direction nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.02 to decide the stay
application dated 26.02.2026 in Case No. 367 of 2026,
Computerized Case No. C202602000000367,
"Ghanshyam and others Vs Bhaiyalal and Others"
under section 38(4) Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006
pending in the court of Additional Commissioner
(Judicial) Davison Prayagraj. within stipulated period."

3. Learned cousnel for the petitioners submitted that long standing
entry has been expunged in the summary proceeding under Section
WRIC No. 38703 of 2026
2

38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He submitted that appeal filed by
the petitioner under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
along with the stay application is pending before respondent
no.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Division Prayagraj, District-
Prayagraj, as such proper direction be issued for expeditious
disposal of the appeal and till the disposal of appeal, respondents
should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the
petitioners' plot no.151 area 0.114 hectare.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned
counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that finding has been recorded
that petitioners have failed to prove their entitlement to the plot which
is recorded as banjar, as the case, in which order was alleged to be
passed for recording the name of petitioner as bhumidhar with
transferable right not been found in the record as such the instant writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned cousnel for
the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents, learned cousnel for the gaon sabha and perused
the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 38 (1)
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of petitioners along with
the stay application is pending before respondent no.2-Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) Division Prayagraj, District-Prayagraj.

7. Perusal of the revenue entry anenxed along with writ petition prima
facie demonstrate that petitioners were recorded over the plot in
quesiton since considerable period as such the appeal should be
decided in proper manner and till the disposal of the appeal, interim
protection should be granted in favour of the petitioners.

8. This Court in the case reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 Ali Sher Vs.
State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and others, has held that if
order under appeal or revision has serious consequence then
operation of the order must be suspended till pendency of the appeal/
revision. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the judgment rendered in Ali Sher
(Supra) will be relevant which are as under:
WRIC No. 38703 of 2026
3

"4. It is well settled that once an
appeal or revision is entertained by a
higher Court against an order having
civil consequences stay normally
should be granted to avoid swinging
pendulum unless the Court for the
reasons to be recorded finds that
there is no case for grant of stay as
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza
Buland Sugar Industries.
5. Considering the facts and
circumstances, impugned order dated
16.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Writ
petition stands allowed. Appellate
Court is directed to disposal of the
appeal of petitioner in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order before him
and till the disposal of appeal as
directed above, parties shall maintain
status quo with regard to nature and
possession over the land in dispute."

9. Considering the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Ali Sher
(Supra) as well as the entire facts and circumstances of the case the
instant writ petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent
no.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Division Prayagraj, District-
Prayagraj to decide the aforementioned appeal after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a
period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of
this order. It is further directed that till the disposal of the
aforementioned appeal, parties are directed to maintain status quo
with respect to the nature and possession of the plot in question.

September 24, 2026
PS*
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…