HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4053 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Mahabir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri A. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders of respondent nos. 1 and 3, dated 18.05.2026 and 10.11.2025, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and their predecessor in interest were co-tenure holder of Shridevi wife of Jawahar Lal, having 1/2 share in the land in dispute. On the death of Shridevi, the petitioners inherited her share as she died issueless. However, a claim has been set up by the contesting respondents on the basis of sale deed dated 22.10.1974, allegedly executed by Shridevi in favour of their predecessor in interest. Shridevi died on 16.09.1974, therefore, the alleged sale deed dated 22.10.1974 has been executed by an imposter. The said fact was duly considered by the Tehsildar and after relying on the material available on record held that the sale deed dated 22.10.1974 is a fraudulent document and directed that the names of petitioners be recorded. The order of Naib Tehsildar dated 13.10.2025 was illegally recalled by his subsequent order dated 10.11.2025 on the application moved by respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is further contended that the respondent no. 1 while allowing the revision of the petitioners, challenging the order dated 10.11.2025, though has set aside the said Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahabir Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C. Dharmpal Gautam And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And 33 Others .....Respondent(s) order, has restored the restoration application of the contesting respondents to be decided afresh, even though they have no right in the land in dispute as their basis of claim on the sale deed dated 22.10.1974 has admittedly been executed after the death of Shridevi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent no. 1 has erred in partly allowing the revision, whereas the entire proceeding and the order dated 13.10.2025 was liable to be set aside as the contesting respondents have no right in the land in dispute. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. The basis of claim of the contesting respondents is sale deed dated 22.10.1974. Perusal of order dated 13.10.2025 shows that on 12.10.1974 itself a deposit for issuance of Bhumidhar Sanad was made on behalf of Shridevi and the sale deed was executed. There is nothing on record to show that any Bhumidhari Sanad was subsequently granted in favour of Shridevi or the sale deed dated 22.10.1974 was challenged before any competent court or authority. All these matters require consideration for ignoring a registered document of sale. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the remand of proceeding to be decided afresh by the respondent no. 1 is justified and does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No perversity in the order dated 18.05.2026 is shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, no interference in the matter is required. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 14, 2026 Ashok Kr. WRIB No. 4053 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad