Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1660 (ALL)

SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS

WRIB/2207/2026 · 2026-05-17

Arun Kumar

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2207 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned Interim Stay Order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Learned Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow (Opposite Party No. 2) in Revision No. REV/2630/2023 (Computerized No. R20230341002630), Kripa Shankar vs. Sushil Kumar Shukla (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition). II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 to dismiss the Revision No. REV/2630/2023 as being non- maintainable and barred by the principle of sub-judice, in light of the pending Civil Suit (O.S. No. 232 of 2017). III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Revenue Authorities to maintain the name of the Petitioners in the Revenue Records (Khatauni) in accordance with the registered sale deed of 1987 and the final appellate order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial)." 3. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the interim order dated 7.12.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow directing the parties to maintain status quo as on date. The petitioners instead of getting the revision decided on merits have come before this Court challenging the interim orders after about 30 months. The Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akshay Mohiley, Ankit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sushil Kumar Shukla And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 10 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioners had a remedy of moving a stay vacation application for vacating the aforesaid order instead of approaching this Court after more than two years. 4. Be that as it may, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid revision itself finally, by passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. May 18, 2026 Anil WRIB No. 2207 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad