Allahabad High Court
PARASNATH GUPTA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and disposed of the petition, noting that the petitioners may still pursue their case under Section 34 of the Land Reforms Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Parasnath Gupta and another, challenged an order dated 2 June 2014 that allowed a recall application filed by a contesting respondent and rejected the petitioners' revision on 12 September 2025. The petitioners claimed prejudice from the impugned order and sought relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court observed that the petitioners could still present their case before the concerned respondent under Section 34 of the Land Reforms Act, and that the ex‑parte proceedings dated 15 April 2013 had already been recalled. Consequently, the Court found no basis to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore disposed, with a direction that the petitioners may continue to make legal submissions for an expeditious decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the recall order and exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Land Reforms Act — s. 34
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- ex‑parte order
- recall application
- Section 34
- Land Reforms Act
- prejudice
- legal submissions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 43687 of 2025
Parasnath Gupta And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puran Nath Shukla, Sarita Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Puran Nath Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Dhananjai Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
2. Order dated 2.6.2014 is an order whereby Recall Application filed on
behalf of contesting respondent was allowed and revision thereof filed by
petitioner was rejected vide an order dated 12.9.2025.
3. An argument of learned counsel for petitioner that he is highly
prejudiced by impugned order is not sustainable since he is at liberty to
place is case before concern respondent who will decide the application
filed under Section 34 of L.R. Act expeditiously strictly in accordance
with law.
4. It is not disputed that on basis of publication, proceedings were
conducted ex-parte vide an order dated 15.4.2013 which has been
recalled, therefore, Court does not find any reason to exercise its
discretion in writ jurisdiction.
5. Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner is still at
liberty to submit all his legal submissions so that matter be decided
expeditiously.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
March 25, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…