HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11676 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dhiraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 04.10.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Case No. 2843 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. C 202310000002843) - Dharmendra Vs. Vivek Kumar Singh and Others under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and Kurra Phat Report dated 18.11.2023, being Case No. 14536 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T 20221460314536) - Vivek Kumar Singh and Others Vs. Dharmendra and Another, under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute in the present case relates to Khata No. 76 of Gata No. 499/0.145 hectares and Khata No. 75 of Gata No. 503/0.208 hectares, situated at Village - Bairisalpur, Pargana - Nigohan, Tehsil - Mohanlalganj, District - Lucknow, which was initially recorded in the name of one Ram Siddh. It is stated that Ram Siddh executed will dated 13.02.2001 in favour of his Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhiraj Chaurasiya, Gajendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Dharmendra .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) two sons namely Dharmendra (petitioner) and Vasudeo and their names were duly recorded in the revenue record by means of order dated 20.03.2010 on the basis of registered will deed. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit was filed by the petitioner seeking permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow which has been registered as Suit No. 343 of 2013, which is still pending consideration and it is during the said suit proceedings that the petitioner has filed a case under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj for possession of the property. It is during the said proceedings preliminary decree has been passed on 09.08.2023, granting petitioner half share of the property, which was initially recorded in the name of Ram Siddh and other half share in favour of Vasudeo. It is against order dated 09.08.2023, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which has been rejected by order dated 04.10.2025. 6. Without entering into the controversy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not dispute the fact that by preliminary decree dated 09.08.2023, shares have been fixed, he also does not dispute the fact that his share is only half in the said property and has categorically stated that he does not claim any larger share in the said property. Infact, the dispute only relates to partition by metes and bounds as mentioned in the Khurra report dated 18.11.2023. 7. It is noticed that the revisional Court while rejecting the revision has also noticed that there is no infirmity in the preliminary decree where one half share has been mentioned in favour of petitioner and petitioner could not dispute that he has any interest larger then the share which has been granted to him by the trial Court. Before this Court also, as per averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner his share in the property is half and therefore, it is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any infirmity in the preliminary decree. 8. It has been submitted that the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate are still WRIC No. 11676 of 2025 2 pending and prayer has been made that the trial Court may be directed to proceed after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 9. Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders where only half share has been allocated to the petitioner and accordingly, present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 10. However, the trial Court shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned before passing final judgment. The said direction is subject to cooperation by the petitioner, who has undertaken that he will file his objections to the Khurra report forthwith. 11. Subject to aforesaid directions present writ petition stands dismissed. December 2, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 11676 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench