Bramhadev Mishra And 5 Others v. Sudhanshu Pandey
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. All the respondents are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
Judgment
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2015, whereby the patta of agricultural land granted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been cancelled by respondent no. 3, as well as the order dated 26.02.2026, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been rejected by respondent no. 2.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that one Surendra Sharma was granted a patta under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on 02.06.1988 in respect of Arazi No. 1015M, measuring
0.1010 hectare (25 decimals). It is submitted that, at the time of grant of patta, the land was recorded as banjar land and, subsequently, Surendra Sharma acquired bhumidhari with transferable rights over the land in dispute.
It is further contended that on 26.07.2002, Surendra Sharma transferred the land in question in favour of the petitioners through a registered sale deed, and in pursuance thereof, the names of the petitioners were duly recorded in the revenue records.
It is submitted that on 18.07.2014, a complaint was filed seeking cancellation of the patta granted in favour of Sri Surendra Sharma and others on 02.06.1988, and thereafter, the patta came to be cancelled by means of the impugned order dated 22.12.2015. 2 WRIC No. 11923 of 2026
It is further contended that, on legal advice, the petitioners initially filed an application for restoration of the order dated 22.12.2015. However, upon realizing that such application was not maintainable, the petitioners preferred a revision before respondent no. 2, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court, and this Court, by order dated 08.11.2024, directed respondent no. 2 to decide the revision strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months. However, respondent no. 2, by means of the impugned order dated 26.02.2026, has again dismissed the revision on the ground of delay and has also affirmed the order dated 22.12.2015 on merits.
It is also contended that the proceedings for cancellation of patta could not have been initiated after a lapse of about 26 years and were barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the names of the petitioners were duly recorded in the revenue records. However, neither were the petitioners impleaded as parties in the proceedings for cancellation of patta, nor were they afforded any opportunity of hearing or notice was issued to them prior to passing of the impugned order dated 22.12.2015.
Matter requires consideration.
All the respondents are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
List this matter on 11.05.2026.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated
26.2.2026 passed by the respondent no.2 shall remain stayed. March 30, 2026 Gaurav (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
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.