Bhagwan Singh & Anr. v. State Of Up And 15 Others

: Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Sita Ram Sharma : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C. Court No. - 37 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The present petition has been filed seeking direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. 1035 of 2025 as well as order dated 03.11.2025, passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No. 2407 of 2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were the original allottees of Gata Nos. 297, 280 and 281, respectively, pursuant to the resolution/order passed by the Gram Sabha in the year 1975. The said proposal/allotment was duly approved by the competent authority, whereafter possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioners, and since then they have remained in peaceful possession thereof.

It is further submitted that after an inordinate delay of about 23 years, the private respondents preferred a purported complaint/application dated 25.10.1999 before the District Authorities seeking cancellation of the lease/allotment made in favour of the petitioners, alleging therein that they were the original tenure holders and that their names had already been recorded in the revenue records after treating the land in question as surplus land.

The petitioners appeared before the authority concerned and specifically contended that they were the lawful allottees in pursuance of the resolution 2 WRIC No. 9494 of 2026 passed by the Gaon Sabha and had been continuing in possession of the disputed land since the date of allotment. It was also submitted that the application filed by the private respondents was wholly misconceived, barred by delay and laches, and had been instituted deliberately after 23 years without disclosing any cogent or plausible explanation for such extraordinary delay. From perusal of both the impugned orders, it is evident that the learned trial court has rejected the application of the petitioners as not maintainable. They have not considered the objection of the petitioners, which was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 to 16 with direction to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Put up on 13.08.2026 as fresh.

The parties are directed to maintain status quo till the pendency of this petition. May 6, 2026 A. Tripathi (Vinod Diwakar,J.)