INDRA BAHADUR SINGH AND 8 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 23 OTHERS
WRIC/31303/2025 · 2025-09-09
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 89327 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 89327 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31303 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 24.08.2022 passed by Collector Mirzapur, Respondent No.2 in Case No. 422/2016, Computerized Case No D2016165300422 (Indra Bahadur Singh and Others Vs. Daya Ram Singh and Others) U/s 128 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 whereby the application of the petitioners for cancellation of Patta to the Private respondents has been rejected. ii) a issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to make any interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners in Gata No. 33Ka, 17Ka and 9 situated in the Village Rahkalan, Tappa- Upraudh, Pargana - Kantit, Tehsil - Madihan, District Mirzapur."
2. Petitioner before this Court had initiated proceedings for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the private-respondent nos. 5 to 24. The application so made was dismissed by the order impugned.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Prabhuti Kant Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned is a revisable
order under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already a revision has been filed which is pending consideration. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh Indra Bahadur Singh And 8 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 23 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. This Court finds that once the revision itself is pending consideration, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
6. The writ petition is disposed of directing the revisional authority to proceed with the revision and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 10, 2025 A. V. Singh WRIC No. 31303 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad