Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45799 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7337 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notice to the private respondent is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Assistant Collector Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, whereby he has allowed the application of respondent no.4 filed under sections 104/105 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 and held that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners to be hit by provisions of Sections 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and accordingly, the land has vested in the state. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed without application of mind, or even verifying the basic facts which were deserved to be looked into before passing the impugned order dated 30/05/2025. He submitted that the application preferred by respondent no.4 was a false and fabricated application filed in the name of Vinod Kumar etc., while in case, the said application was filed by Deepak Kumar accompanied by affidavit of Deepak Kumar. He submits that no petition was either filed or pending in the name of the petitioner before the SDM, and accordingly, in case of fresh case was being filed by the opposite party no.4, where it should be typed Deepak Kumar versus State of U.P., rather than a case has been cause tilted in the name of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner had purchased land situated at Gata No. 444, area 3402 square feet and Gata No. 447, area 2400 square feets situated at Aurangabad Jagir, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow from one Radhe Shyam son of Bhola Nath by means of a registered sale deed. By two registered sale deed executed on 08.03.2006 the same date. The allegations were that the petitioner had not obtained prior permission of the collector as required under Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act inasmuch as the seller belongs to a scheduled caste, while the petitioner belongs to the general category. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the application would itself indicate that neither the details of the address of the petitioner were given in the said application, and consequently, there is no dispute that even though the notices were purportedly issued to the petitioner but the same were never received by him. He submits that even publication was made but the nature of the publication which has been annexed, would indicate that no reasonable person could come to a conclusion that proceedings of the nature were pending before the Additional District Magistrate and therefore, for the said reasons, the petitioners did not have any knowledge of the said proceedings and the same resulting in the ex parte impugned order dated 30.05.2025. He further submits that on the merits of the matter, it has been submitted by counsel of the petitioners that the provisions of Sections 166/167 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would apply only to 'lands' as describes under section 3 (14) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which includes only land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming. He submits that subsequently, according to notification issued by the state government, the said land has been vested within the municipal limits of Lucknow and has been handed over to Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on which and accordingly, no agricultural activity is going on in the said land, and hence, the land is an aabadi and beyond the purview of 'lands' and hence is not subjected to rigours under Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act / Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code. Accordingly, he submits that, even on the merits, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary may be set aside. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. It was stated that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code against the impugned order, filing an application for recall under proviso to section 209H of the UP Revenue Code. 7. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that objections raised by the petitioner go to the very root of the matter. Firstly, pertaining to the genuineness of the applicant, who has moved the application, purportedly in the name of the petitioner. Secondly, the merit of the matter also deserves consideration, but undoubtedly is factual in nature and it has to be determined whether on the purported land purchased by the petitioner by means of the registered sale deeds dated 08.06.2006, such land could be subjected to Section 104 and 105 of the UP Revenue Code. Accordingly, these are the matters, which can only be determined only after adequate opportunity is given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in this regard, which may be duly considered by the competent authority in the findings returned. 8. Accordingly, I find that the petitioner has an adequate remedy of either filing an application for recall of the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 or filing a revision against the said order. Accordingly, the petition is relegated to his alternative remedy under U.P. Revenue Code. 9. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner and also that it has been merely informed this Court that he will be filing an appropriate application within next two weeks. Further, it is provided that in case, the application is filed within the next two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner until proceedings are underway/ application for recall/ appellate proceedings are finally decided. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceeding, which may concluded expeditiously, say within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. 10. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 6.8.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench