HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3981 of 2026 Court No. - 34 (SN.29) (Transfer from Court No. 51) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: "I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari Quashing the impugned order dated 23.07.2026 passed by respondent no.-2. in Second Appeal no. SA 6027/2025 (Computerized case AL20250531006027 (Munna and others Vs. state of U.P. and others) U/s 208 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 and impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by respondent no.-3 in Appeal no. 1616/2024 (Computerized case no. C202405000001616 (Mukul Gupta Vs. Munna and others) U/s 207 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 and further may pleased to confirming the order dated 7.8.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gorakhpur (respondent no.-4) in Suit No. 24655 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. T202105310324655) (Mukul Gupta Vs. Munna and others) Under Section- 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006." 3. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puja Chauhan, Sanjeev Kumar, Shabina Kumari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Munna And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Section 209 (e) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, which specifically bars the maintainability of the Second Appeal with a non obstante clause with regard to the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of the UP Revenue Code as vide impugned order in the Second Appeal dated 16.10.2025, the matter was remanded back to the Subordinate Court for adjudication a fresh. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the categorical and express provision of Section 209 (e) of the UP Revenue Code, he is not in a position to demonstrate any illegality in the order dated 23.07.2026, whereby the Second Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.10.2025, by the respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. 1616 of 2024 (Mukul Gupta vs. Munna and others), whereby the matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deciding afresh after setting aside the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 in Suit No. 24655 of 2021 (Mukul Gupta vs. Munna and others). 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Appellate Court has erroneously passed the order remanding back the matter as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has already held on the basis of the spot inspection that out of total area of 0.3488 hectare of arazi no. 109/1, the petitioner herein has constructed the house in an area 0.100 hectare and the rest of the land is an open land and with regard to the same land, the respondents no. 5 and 6 have already filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner being Civil Suit No. 3/86 (Smt. Dropadi vs. Savitri Rai and Others), which is pending adjudication. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the aforesaid land is an abadi land where house is constructed, therefore, the Revenue Courts do not have any jurisdiction to pass any eviction order as prayed on behalf of respondents no. 5 and 6. In such view of the matter, the remand order dated 16.10.2025 is not sustainable. 7. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajaz Carpets and Others vs. Birla International Pvt. Ltd. : 2013 4 AWC WRIB No. 3981 of 2026 2 4286, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: "From the above it is quite clear that if a suit relating to land held by bhoomidhar is instituted in a court other than revenue record (Assistant Collector/S.D.O.) and a question arises whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes connected with agricultural then matter has to be referred to the Assistant Collector. However if in any such suit filed before the Civil Court or J.S.C.C., there is no dispute that the land is actually being used for purposes not connected with agricultural and it is admitted that the land is having constructed portion and is being used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes then there will be absolutely no necessity to refer the matter to the Assistant Collector. The necessary corollary which follows is that if plaintiff claims and defendant admits that on an agricultural land constructions have been made and the same is being used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes then there will be no necessity of a certificate under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.L. & R. Act and the Civil Court or J.S.C.C. or any other Court other than revenue court will have full jurisdiction to decide the matter." 8. From the perusal of the order dated 16.10.2025, it is apparent that the aforesaid land is a bhumidhari land recorded in the name of the respondents no. 5 and 6 and the petitioner herein is in illegal occupation of the aforesaid land and he has changed the nature of the land by constructing the house. There is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act / Section 80 of the UP Revenue Code to declare the aforesaid land as abadi land. On the aforesaid premises, the First Appellate Court has held that the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to decide the eviction proceedings as initiated by the predecessor of respondents no. 5 and 6. Accordingly, the order dated 07.08.2024 was set-aside by the First Appellate Authority. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out that any declaration under Section 143 has ever been made with regard to the WRIB No. 3981 of 2026 3 land in question. It is undisputed in this case that the said land belongs to the respondents no. 5 and 6 as bhumidhari land and they are the recorded owners of the aforesaid land and there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act declaring the aforesaid land as abadi land and from the record it is apparent that the petitioner himself claims that he has changed the nature of land by raising the illegal construction without any permission and without any ownership right on the said property. In such view of the matter, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur. 10. Accordingly, this Court do not find any good reason to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly the instant petition is dismissed. September 9, 2026 Shubham Arya WRIB No. 3981 of 2026 4 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad