Allahabad High Court
JAI NATH AND ANTOHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that it will not issue mandamus to delete the State's name from the revenue record and the petition is disposed, directing the petitioners to seek relief before the competent authority under the applicable statutes.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to delete its name from the revenue record for Plot No. 161 (2.90 acres) and to record the petitioners' name. The respondents argued that the entry had already been rectified and that the petitioners must follow the procedure laid down in the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and its Rules, 2016, and also noted that the land had been declared excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and allocated under the Kanshi Ram Awas Yojna. The Court examined whether it could intervene to order a correction in the revenue record and concluded that the appropriate remedy lies with the petitioners before the competent authority under the statutory scheme. Consequently, the Court declined to issue the writ and disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioners to pursue relief through the prescribed administrative process.
Issues considered
- Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus directing correction of a revenue record in favor of the petitioners?
- Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and its Rules, 2016?
- Does the declaration of the land as excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 affect the petitioners' claim?
Legislation cited
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules
Subjects
- mandamus
- revenue record
- land dispute
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Urban Land Ceiling Act
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 53102 of 2008
Jai Nath And Antoher
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anup Kumar Srivastava, B.D. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Tiwari, Ashish Kumar Srivastava,
Ashok Pandey, C.S.C., H.P. Mishra,
Narendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri B.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri Narendra
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Development Authority and Sri H.P.
Mishra, learned counsel for the proposed respondent nos. 5 to 7.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the
following relief -:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding/directing the respondent to delete the name of
State Government from the revenue record over the plot no.
161 area 2.90 acres and record the name of petitioners over
the plot no. 161 and not dispossess the petitioner from the land
in dispute."
3. A perusal of the record shows that the instant writ petition was filed
wayback in the year 2008 and at the time of admission, learned counsel
for the petitioner wanted to delete the first and second relief in the writ
petition which was accorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 16.10.2008. In the instant proceeding, the impleadment
application is also filed by Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the proposed respondent nos. 5 to 7.
4. Now, the petitioners have confined the relief only to the extent that a
WRIC No. 53102 of 2008
2
direction be issued to the respondent to delete the name of State
Government from the revenue record qua Plot No. 161 area 2.90 acres
and in this regard, objection has also been raised by learned counsel for
the contesting respondents that the entry has already been rectified and
there is an exhaustive procedure provided under the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 read with U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and in case the
petitioners are aggrieved, they may invoke the proceeding strictly in
accordance with law as enumerated under the Code/Rules.
5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent vehemently contends
that the excess land has been declared under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 as the same has not been challenged and later on,
under the Kanshi Ram Awas Yojna, certain dwelling units have been
raised.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to keep
the matter pending consideration as the petitioners have confined the
relief to the extent that the entry may be corrected in the revenue record.
Needless to say, it is open to the petitioners to press the relief before the
competent authority in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid leave, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 5, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…