Saraswati @ Sursatiya v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed by respondent no.3, Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Rasra, Ballia in Case No. RST/1564 of 2023, computerized case no. T- 202315090401564 (Gaon Sabha vs. Sursatiya) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure No.5) and order dated 24.12.2024 passed by respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Ballia in Case No. 2336 of 2024, computerized case no. D- 202415090002336 (Sursatiya vs. Gaon Sabha Atrauli Karmauta & others) under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure No.7 to this writ petition) ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute i.e. Arazi No.384 Rakba 0.065 hectare situated at Mauza Atrauli Karmauta, Pargana Sikandarpur Garvi, Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia. "
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner and the same were decided by an ex- parte order dated 27.09.2023. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal in which detailed objections has been taken by the petitioner including the objections that the land in dispute belonged to the petitioner and the proceedings under Section 27(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are pending. Without considering the objections filed by the petitioner, the appeal has been dismissed.
Matter requires consideration.
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are represented by learned Standing Counsel. Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 4.
Respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — s. 27(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 27 Feb 2025. The bench was MANISH KUMAR NIGAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.