HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1002997 of 2005 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Indra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing order dated 22.2.2005 passed by respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure No.4 and order dated 29.4.2005 passed by respondent no.1 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, with further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute or resume construction over the land in dispute for the purposes of school building. 3. Plot No.1854 recorded as Abadi land has been settled with petitioners on the date of vesting after abolition of Zamndari in 1952 under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and petitioners are in possession over the land as Sahan of their house. After abolition of Zamindari the land was recorded as Mohal of Kishun Narain Singh predecessor in interest of petitioners. During consolidation, the land has been reserved for school purposes and also play ground over plot nos.1866 and 1867 and plot no.1204 and 1202 has also been reserved for the same purpose as per 1408 Fasli Khasra/ Khatauni. Some villagers gave a Notary Affidavit before respondent no.2 in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.S. Pande, Indra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dipak Srivastava, R.N.Gupta, S.C. Tewari, V.K. Bajpai Amar Jeet Singh And 4 Ors. .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Admin. Faizabad And 4 Ors. .....Respondent(s) connivance with Pradhan for giving consent for construction of school building in village abadi i.e. land over which petitioners are in possession. On the basis of the affidavit, Lekhpal submitted report that 0.252 hectare abadi land recorded in class 6(2) may be taken for school purposes. The report was forwarded by Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar to Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector passed order that abadi land of plot no.1845(M) is reserved for school purposes which is recorded as abadi and it is also old village abadi as per Khatauni of 1408 fasli. The petitioners filed filed revision before the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 admitted revision and also granted stay order vide order dated 4.4.2005. Thereafter, the revision was finally heard and has been dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 29.4.2005. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order is not of administrative in nature and while discharging the judicial duty, the order was passed, therefore the revision is maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute before Zamindari Abolition Act came into force, therefore he has legal right to hold the land and allotment of land to the school is wholly unjustified. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel pointed out that in the writ petition, no ground has been taken that the order is of judicial in nature, therefore holding the order to be administrative, revision cannot be maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record. 7. On its perusal, it is evident that on the basis of affidavit, Lekhpal submitted report that 0.252 hectare abadi land recorded in class 6(2) may be taken for school purpose. The report was forwarded to Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar to Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector passed order that abadi land of plot no.1845 (M) is reserved for school purpose which is recorded as abadi and it is also old village abadi as per the Khatauni of 1408 fasli. Against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, a revision WRIC No. 1002997 of 2005 2 was filed on 30.3.2005 which has been dismissed on 29.4.2005 on the ground that the order passed by the Deputy Collector is of administrative in nature, therefore no revision lies against that order. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that Revisional Court has committed no mistake in dismissing the revision holding that it is administrative order. On perusal of the order of the Deputy Collector, it is evident that on administrative side, the school building was directed to be constructed on the land allotted for the said purpose. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 10. Needless to say that the petitioner is free to approach appropriate Authority against administrative order. September 17, 2025 GK Sinha WRIC No. 1002997 of 2005 3 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench