Allahabad High Court
GANGARAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The court may direct the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the order of the Additional District Magistrate, without interfering with the orders under challenge.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector (Civil Supply), Prayagraj, which set aside an earlier order quashing eviction proceedings and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with a hearing. The petition sought a direction that the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, decide the matter afresh pursuant to the 08.01.2026 order. The State respondents did not oppose the prayer. The High Court, after hearing arguments, declined to interfere with the substantive orders under challenge but directed the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar to decide the case anew within four months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment, unless a legal impediment exists. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with the specified direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a directive to an administrative authority to decide a matter afresh as per a higher authority's order without interfering with the substantive orders under challenge
- Whether the petitioner's prayer for expeditious fresh adjudication is maintainable
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- writ petition
- Section 67
- U.P. Revenue Code
- eviction proceedings
- fresh hearing
- administrative direction
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 5838 of 2026
Gangaram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atul Kumar Dubey, Shyam Mohan
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. In the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 67 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an order dated 08.05.2023 was passed by
the Respondent No.3 by which the eviction proceedings were quashed.
2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, State preferred an appeal under
Section 67(5) which was allowed by the Respondent No.2 namely
Additional District Magistrate/ Additional Collector (Civil Supply),
Prayagraj vide order dated 08.01.2026. By the aforesaid order, order dated
08.05.2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 was set aside and the matter
was remanded back to decide the matter a fresh after providing an
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned on merits.
3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present
writ petition.
4. After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer
and prayed that the respondent No.3 namely Assistant Collector/
Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj be directed to decide the
matter a fresh pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the
Respondent No.2, expeditiously.
5. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of State-respondents.
6. In this view of the matter and without interfering with the orders which
WRIC No. 5838 of 2026
2
are under challenge, the present writ petition is disposed of finally
directing the respondent No.3 namely Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar,
Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj to decide the matter a fresh pursuant to
the order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 08.01.2026 within a
period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of
this order, unless there is no legal impediment.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
March 19, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…