Ravindra Kumar And 10 Others v. State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Heard Sri S. S. Shukla, holding brief of Sri D. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rohit Yadav, holding brief of Sri S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent no.2 - Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Meerut, dated 16.01.2026, passed in Revision No.309 of 2023 filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

Facts of the case are that on the death of Dheeraj, the recorded tenure holder of plot no.132 area 0.7920 hectare, an application for mutation was filed by the petitioners on the basis of registered will dated 04.12.1995, which was rejected by the order of Naib Tehsildar, dated 04.04.2022. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Deputy District Magistrate, Hapur was dismissed by the order dated 20.02.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed revision which was allowed by the order of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), IInd, Meerut Division, Meerut, dated 26.10.2023, allowing the application filed by the petitioners directing their names to be recorded on the basis of registered will dated 04.12.1995. The aforesaid order dated 26.10.2023 was challenged by the respondent nos.3 and 4 by filing revision before the respondent no.2 in which order impugned dated 16.01.2026 has been passed directing the parties not to create third party right and raise any construction over the plot in question. 2 WRIB No. 2007 of 2026

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the revision, notices were issued to the petitioners, who had appeared in the aforesaid revision. An application dated 13.01.2026 was moved by the respondent nos.3 and 4 with a prayer that petitioners be restrained from raising construction over plot in question. On the aforesaid application, petitioners were granted time to file their objection, which was filed on 16.01.2026 with prayer to reject the aforesaid application. However, the respondent no.2 proceeded to grant injunction in favour of revisionist without considering objection filed by the petitioners against the application dated 13.01.2026. It is submitted that as the plot in dispute has already been sold by the respondent nos.3 and 4 in favour of one Jagveer Nagar vide sale deed dated 22.11.2012, they had no substantial right in it, as such, the revision was not maintainable on their behalf. Submission is that the said objection was raised at the time of admission of the revision by the counsel for the petitioners when no interim order was granted. However, the same objection raised by the petitioners in their objection against application dated 13.01.2026 has been ignored. It is further argued that transferee of plot no.132, Jagveer Nagar, had already filed a suit for injunction in which interim injunction was refused, which has been upheld upto this Court.

In view of the fact that the plot in dispute was transferred by respondent nos.3 and 4 in favour of Jagveer Nagar during pendency of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, they had no right left in the said plot to contest the proceedings any further. The revision filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 even without impleading their transferee was not maintainable.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent nos.3 to 7. Steps be taken within a week by speed post.

All the respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter. 3 WRIB No. 2007 of 2026

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order of respondent no.2, dated 16.01.2026, shall remain in abeyance. May 6, 2026 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.)