Allahabad High Court
SHRI MURARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The orders were passed in violation of the prescribed procedure and are hereby quashed.
Summary
Petitioner Murari filed a writ petition challenging two orders—one dated 23 September 2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Bareilly, and another dated 29 March 2025 issued by the Tehsildar (Sadar), Bareilly—on the ground that they were passed in violation of the procedural requirements laid down in para‑74 of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and the provisions of Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The respondents admitted that the prescribed procedure had not been followed. The High Court examined the submissions and held that the orders indeed contravened the mandated procedure. Consequently, the Court quashed both orders and directed the Tehsildar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders dated 23‑09‑2025 and 29‑03‑2025 were passed in violation of the procedure prescribed in para‑74 of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P.
- Whether the non‑compliance with Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 renders the orders void
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- writ petition
- quash order
- procedural violation
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Section 67
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 5350 of 2026
Shri Murari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for
respondent No.4/Gaon Sabha.
2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by
respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Bareilly in Case No. 1479 of 2025 as
well as order dated 29.03.2025 passed by respondent no.3-Tehsildar
(Sadar), Bareilly District Bareilly in Case No.7935 of 2022.
3. Apart from various other arguments, one of the arguments has been
raised by counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid orders were passed in
complete violation of the procedure prescribed in para-74 passed in the
case of Rishipal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported
in 2023 (1) ADJ 154 hence same are liable to be set aside. It is argued
that complete procedure has also been provided under Section 67 of
U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 but the same was not complied with which is
clear from perusal of the order impugned itself.
4. This fact is also admitted by counsel for the respondents.
5. In view of the same, since the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by
respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Bareilly in Case No. 1479 of 2025 as
well as order dated 29.03.2025 passed by respondent no.3-Tehsildar
(Sadar), Bareilly District Bareilly in Case No.7935 of 2022 were passed
in complete violation of procedure prescribed in the case of Rishipal
WRIC No. 5350 of 2026
2
(supra) hence same are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order
as to costs.
7. The respondent no.3-Tehsildar(Sadar), Bareilly District Bareilly is
directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
April 9, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…