✦ High Court of India · 22 Sep 2025

Counsel for v. Kumar Malviya, C.S.C., Sanjeev Singh

Case Details High Court of India · 22 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
22 Sep 2025
Bench
SARAL SRIVASTAVAAMITABH KUMAR RAI
Length
1,253 words

: Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra : Arvind Kumar Upadhyay, Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, C.S.C., Sanjeev Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1, 5, 6 & 7 and learned counsel for the respondents No.3 &

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(I). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No.3 to conclude the enquiry initiated pursuance of the order of the Chancellor in letter No.1351/Ka.Ka/2023 dated 29.04.2023 and take a final decision in respect of recognition of the respondent No.9 within stipulated period. (II). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the District Magistrate, Mau to take appropriate action against the revenue authority they were given the No Objection Certificate of the petitioner land for granting the recognition of the respondent No.9. (III). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the District Magistrate, Mau to take a disciplinary action/criminal proceeding against the revenue officers involved in the present case. (IV). Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet ends of justice. (V). Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner."

3. The petitioner claims that he is co-sharer of Gata No.535, situated at 2 WRIC No. 11557 of 2025 Village and Pargana Takteuwa Rampur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau and the respondents No.8 and 9 have obtained approval for running a college in the name of Lalsar Krishak Mahavidyalaya, Takteuwa Rampur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau. The petitioner submits that in this respect, an enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate, Mau and in the enquiry, it was found that Gata No.535 is not adjacent to other plots in respect of which approval has been granted and thus, in the light of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner prays that the reliefs extracted above may be granted.

4. On a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner that as to how, the petitioner is co-sharer of Gata No.535, he has relied upon the Khatauni enclosed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. In the said Khatauni, under running heading "पूवर् आदेशों का िववरण", he has invited the attention of the Court at serial No.4 which is reproduced herein below:- "(१९) अभ्युि्वः पूवर् आदेशों का िववरण १) १४२० फ० वाद ९ अन्तगर्त धारा १४३ ज० िव० अिध०ता०फै ० २४.४.१३ का आदेश खाता सं० २४६ पर है। ०३.८ .१३। २) १४२८ फ० कायार्लय रा० िन० बोझी कम्प्यूटरीकृ त सं० २०२०१५१९२००९७१००७८७ अन्तगर्त धारा ३३ (२) राजस्व सं० २००६ िदनांक १७.०१.२०२१ मृतक रणधीर पु्ऴ मुरली का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर अनीता पत्नी रणधीर व िशवानन्द पु्ऴ रणधीर सा० स्था० का नाम बतौर जिरये वरासतन अंिकत हो। ०८.०३.२०२१। ३) १४२९ फ० कायार्लय रा० िन० बोझी कम्प्यटरीकृ त सं० २०२२१५१९२००९७१०००३८९ अन्तगर्त धारा ३३ (२) राजस्व सं० २००६ िदनांक २८.०१.२०२२ खाता सं० २६४, ३०५, ३०३, २६७, ३०६, ५७, १५, ५८, २६३, २६५, ३०९ से मृतक सुरेन््श नाथ पु्ऴ महातम का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर सत्यवती पत्नी सुरेन््श नाथ सा० स्था० का नाम बतौर जिरये वरासतन अंिकत हो। ०२.०५.२०२२। ४) १४२९ फ० सन् २०२२) आदे० तह० महो० घो सी वाद सं० टी २०२११५५१०२०१७३७/१४.०६.२०२२ खाता सं० ५७, ३०२, ३०३, ३०४, ३०५, ३०६, ३०७, ३०८, ३०९, ३११ से (मृतक) रामके र पु्ऴ काशीनाथ सा० अठनारू तह० सगड़ी िजला आजमग़ा हा०मु० टकटउवा रामपुर का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर अिपत व आिदत्यनाथ पु्ऴगण अजय व अंिकत पु्ऴ जगदम्बा सा० टकटेउवा रामपुर का नाम पंजीकृ त वसीयतनामा िदनांक ०१.०९.२०२० के आधार पर बतौर उ्तरािधकारी दजर् हो।२१.०६.२०२२। ५) १४३० फ० सन् २०२२) आदे० तह० महो० घोसी वाद सं० टी २०२२१५५१०२०२९६५/११.११.२०२२ खाता सं० ५७, ७६, ७९, ८०, ८२, २६६, ३०३, ३०५ से (मृतक) राजेन््श पु्ऴ मुसािफर सा० ग्दोपुर तह० समड़ी िजला आजमग़ा हा० मु० टकटेउवा रामपुर का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर के शरी पत्नी राजेन््श व ्ऺमोद पु्ऴ राजेन््श सा० ग्दोपुर तह० िजला आजमग़ा का नाम जिरये वरासतन अंिकत हो। ०६.१२.२०२२। "

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of this order, the petitioner is also co-sharer of Gata No.535. The order referred to at serial No.4 under the heading "पूवर् आदेशों का िववरण" does not contain Gata 3 WRIC No. 11557 of 2025 No.535.

6. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was pointed out the aforesaid infirmity, he submits that the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition that he is co-sharer of Gata No.535. Paragraph No.5 of the writ petition is reproduced herein below:- "That the petitioner has submitted application on 29.11.2022 before the respondent No.3 and they have stated in paragraph No.3 of the application that the lands including the petitioner was given in 10 Gatas and they have said each of the Gata is adjacent this fact which is totally incorrect, each of the Gata of the land is in different places and from the revenue authorities they obtained No Objection Certificate by way of misrepresenting the facts. The true copy of the application dated

29.11.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition."

7. The petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs extracted above. The petitioner has to make out a case for issuing the mandamus. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has any interest whatsoever over Gata No.535. Mere assertions in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition that the petitioner is co-sharer of Gata No.535 is not sufficient inasmuch as the title is to be proved by documents of title. In such view of the fact, the assertions in the writ petition cannot be considered.

8. Even otherwise, we find that there is no merit in the writ petition inasmuch as it has been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that on 01.11.2007 approval has been granted and the same has not been assailed by the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court after about 18 years from the date, the approval has been granted to the respondent No.9 and in order to avoid the question of limitation and the delay and laches in filing the writ petition, he has deliberately not assailed the order dated

01.11.2007 and has placed reliance upon the report of the District Magistrate, Mau dated 29.04.2023 which cannot be said to be the sufficient material for initiating action against the respondents No.8 and 9.

9. In such view of the fact, we find that the petitioner's conduct is not fair and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

10. This Court has wasted substantial time in hearing the learned counsel for 4 WRIC No. 11557 of 2025 the petitioner, therefore, for the reasons given above, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner which shall be deposited by him with the High Court Legal Services Committee at Allahabad within a period of one week.

11. The writ petition is dismissed with above cost. September 22, 2025 SS (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra : Arvind Kumar Upadhyay, Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, C.S.C., Sanjeev Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1, 5, 6 & 7 and learned counsel for the respondents No.3 &

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(I). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No.3 to conclude the enquiry initiated pursuance of the order of the Chancellor in letter No.1351/Ka.Ka/2023 dated 29.04.2023 and take a final decision in respect of recognition of the respondent No.9 within stipulated period. (II). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the District Magistrate, Mau to take appropriate action against the revenue authority they were given the No Objection Certificate of the petitioner land for granting the recognition of the respondent No.9. (III). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the District Magistrate, Mau to take a disciplinary action/criminal proceeding against the revenue officers involved in the present case. (IV). Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet ends of justice. (V). Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner."

3. The petitioner claims that he is co-sharer of Gata No.535, situated at 2 WRIC No. 11557 of 2025 Village and Pargana Takteuwa Rampur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau and the respondents No.8 and 9 have obtained approval for running a college in the name of Lalsar Krishak Mahavidyalaya, Takteuwa Rampur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau. The petitioner submits that in this respect, an enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate, Mau and in the enquiry, it was found that Gata No.535 is not adjacent to other plots in respect of which approval has been granted and thus, in the light of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner prays that the reliefs extracted above may be granted.

4. On a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner that as to how, the petitioner is co-sharer of Gata No.535, he has relied upon the Khatauni enclosed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. In the said Khatauni, under running heading "पूवर् आदेशों का िववरण", he has invited the attention of the Court at serial No.4 which is reproduced herein below:- "(१९) अभ्युि्वः पूवर् आदेशों का िववरण १) १४२० फ० वाद ९ अन्तगर्त धारा १४३ ज० िव० अिध०ता०फै ० २४.४.१३ का आदेश खाता सं० २४६ पर है। ०३.८ .१३। २) १४२८ फ० कायार्लय रा० िन० बोझी कम्प्यूटरीकृ त सं० २०२०१५१९२००९७१००७८७ अन्तगर्त धारा ३३ (२) राजस्व सं० २००६ िदनांक १७.०१.२०२१ मृतक रणधीर पु्ऴ मुरली का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर अनीता पत्नी रणधीर व िशवानन्द पु्ऴ रणधीर सा० स्था० का नाम बतौर जिरये वरासतन अंिकत हो। ०८.०३.२०२१। ३) १४२९ फ० कायार्लय रा० िन० बोझी कम्प्यटरीकृ त सं० २०२२१५१९२००९७१०००३८९ अन्तगर्त धारा ३३ (२) राजस्व सं० २००६ िदनांक २८.०१.२०२२ खाता सं० २६४, ३०५, ३०३, २६७, ३०६, ५७, १५, ५८, २६३, २६५, ३०९ से मृतक सुरेन््श नाथ पु्ऴ महातम का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर सत्यवती पत्नी सुरेन््श नाथ सा० स्था० का नाम बतौर जिरये वरासतन अंिकत हो। ०२.०५.२०२२। ४) १४२९ फ० सन् २०२२) आदे० तह० महो० घो सी वाद सं० टी २०२११५५१०२०१७३७/१४.०६.२०२२ खाता सं० ५७, ३०२, ३०३, ३०४, ३०५, ३०६, ३०७, ३०८, ३०९, ३११ से (मृतक) रामके र पु्ऴ काशीनाथ सा० अठनारू तह० सगड़ी िजला आजमग़ा हा०मु० टकटउवा रामपुर का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर अिपत व आिदत्यनाथ पु्ऴगण अजय व अंिकत पु्ऴ जगदम्बा सा० टकटेउवा रामपुर का नाम पंजीकृ त वसीयतनामा िदनांक ०१.०९.२०२० के आधार पर बतौर उ्तरािधकारी दजर् हो।२१.०६.२०२२। ५) १४३० फ० सन् २०२२) आदे० तह० महो० घोसी वाद सं० टी २०२२१५५१०२०२९६५/११.११.२०२२ खाता सं० ५७, ७६, ७९, ८०, ८२, २६६, ३०३, ३०५ से (मृतक) राजेन््श पु्ऴ मुसािफर सा० ग्दोपुर तह० समड़ी िजला आजमग़ा हा० मु० टकटेउवा रामपुर का नाम िनरस्त करके उनके स्थान पर के शरी पत्नी राजेन््श व ्ऺमोद पु्ऴ राजेन््श सा० ग्दोपुर तह० िजला आजमग़ा का नाम जिरये वरासतन अंिकत हो। ०६.१२.२०२२। "

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of this order, the petitioner is also co-sharer of Gata No.535. The order referred to at serial No.4 under the heading "पूवर् आदेशों का िववरण" does not contain Gata 3 WRIC No. 11557 of 2025 No.535.

6. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was pointed out the aforesaid infirmity, he submits that the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition that he is co-sharer of Gata No.535. Paragraph No.5 of the writ petition is reproduced herein below:- "That the petitioner has submitted application on 29.11.2022 before the respondent No.3 and they have stated in paragraph No.3 of the application that the lands including the petitioner was given in 10 Gatas and they have said each of the Gata is adjacent this fact which is totally incorrect, each of the Gata of the land is in different places and from the revenue authorities they obtained No Objection Certificate by way of misrepresenting the facts. The true copy of the application dated

29.11.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition."

7. The petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs extracted above. The petitioner has to make out a case for issuing the mandamus. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has any interest whatsoever over Gata No.535. Mere assertions in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition that the petitioner is co-sharer of Gata No.535 is not sufficient inasmuch as the title is to be proved by documents of title. In such view of the fact, the assertions in the writ petition cannot be considered.

8. Even otherwise, we find that there is no merit in the writ petition inasmuch as it has been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that on 01.11.2007 approval has been granted and the same has not been assailed by the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court after about 18 years from the date, the approval has been granted to the respondent No.9 and in order to avoid the question of limitation and the delay and laches in filing the writ petition, he has deliberately not assailed the order dated

01.11.2007 and has placed reliance upon the report of the District Magistrate, Mau dated 29.04.2023 which cannot be said to be the sufficient material for initiating action against the respondents No.8 and 9.

9. In such view of the fact, we find that the petitioner's conduct is not fair and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

10. This Court has wasted substantial time in hearing the learned counsel for 4 WRIC No. 11557 of 2025 the petitioner, therefore, for the reasons given above, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner which shall be deposited by him with the High Court Legal Services Committee at Allahabad within a period of one week.

11. The writ petition is dismissed with above cost. September 22, 2025 SS (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments