Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16215-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2354 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Considering the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to the private opposite parties is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner herein claims right, title and interest to the extent of half share in Gata No. 1181M, which, according to him, has been illegally sold off by opposite parties no. 6 and 7 who belong to the Scheduled Castes in favour of the opposite party no. 5 who belongs to unreserved category. On a complaint, an inquiry was instituted by the District Magistrate, during which the allegation of the petitioner, as claimed, was found to be correct and inquiry report was prepared on 25.09.2024 and the same has been forwarded to the Higher Authorities through the Revenue Inspector and the Tehsildar for necessary action. Another report dated 30.11.2024 was forwarded by the Lekhpal on 06.12.2024. Several directions have been issued by the Additional District Magistrate to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Balrampur to take action in the matter. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted a letter dated 20.12.2024 to the Additional District Magistrate, wherein, he has mentioned that the purchaser has constructed a house on the land in question and that is the only residential house available with him. The letter also mentions about pendency of a Suit No. 565 of 2021 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Balrampur, but, does not mention the nature of suit. 4. We find that in the writ petition nothing has been stated about pendency of aforesaid Suit. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein claims half share which has been sold off and has annexed Khatauni as Annexure No. 1 pertaining to Gata No. 1181M, but, sale deed has not been annexed which would have enabled us to ascertain whether any part of the said land has been soled or the entire land has been sold off. 6. However, in these circumstances, the petitioner seeks mandamus to opposite parties no. 1 and 4 to vest the land Gata No. 1181 (0.0109 hectares) situated at Village- Gidhraiya, Pargana, Tehsil and District- Balrampur in the State Government, as the sale is in violation of Section 98 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. We find that the total area of Gata No. 1181M is 0.4580 hectares and relief has been sought only in respect of 0.0109 hectares of the said gata, therefore, the petitioner's counsel says that only this part of land has been sold and that is why the relief has been confined only to that extent. 7. If the petitioner claims rights in respect of the rest of the land i.e. land beyond 0.0109 hectares and less than half share which has been sold off, then, without prejudice to the proceedings which may be under Section 104, the petitioner may seek partition of the said land or may initiate proceedings under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as the case may be, and once such partition takes place then he can enjoy his share, however, if his share has been affected in any manner, then, it shall be open for him to seek other remedy as may be prescribed in law. 8. If as a result of the aforesaid exercise for partition or under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 it is found that opposite party no. 5 who has purchased part of the minzumla gata has encroached on the share/land of the petitioner, then, the Revenue Authorities shall remove his encroachment on the petitioner's land but after hearing him. 9. The Collector or Additional Collector whosoever is competent under Section 104 read with Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may look into the matter and take such decision under Section 104 read with Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as may be required in law. 10. Needless to say that the private opposite parties would also be heard in any such proceedings referred hereinabove. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 20.3.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench