Others v. Counsel for

Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court instructions sent by SDM Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow wherein it has been stated that in revenue village Chandakodar Khatauni of falsi 1419-1424 shows Gata No.97 ka, area

0.1620 hectare in the name of Babu son of Kunvar who is the father of the petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable rights. Under CH form 45 during the consolidation operations Khata No.464 was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner under category 9 ka (kha) as bhumidhar with non transferable right. Later on after consolidation operations were finished, the right of Babu son of Kunvar matured under section 131 kha of the UPZALR Act and his name has been recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights under khatauni fasli 1407-1412 in the revenue records on 04.3.2001. The nominated panel lawyer of the Gram Sabha informed the SDM BKT regarding illegal sale and case no.T201810462060 [State vs. Babu and Others] under Section 104, 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code was instituted. Babu son of Kunwar who belonged to reserved category sub caste pasi had sold off 0.0202 hectare out of gata no.97 ka to one Arvind Kumar Pal son of Shiv Balak Pal who belonged to OBC Gadariya category resident of Gram Akohari, Majra Mampur Bana through registered sale deed executed on

23.03.2004, a copy of the sale deed has been enclosed to the said instructions. Later on 0.0202 hectare of gata no.97 ka was again sold off to Meera Pal wife of Chhatra Pal OBC category Gadariya, resident of village Akohari Marja, Mampur Bana on 23.3.2004 through registered sale deed, a copy of which has been enclosed to the said instructions. Such sale deeds executed in favour of two OBC sub caste Gadariya persons was made without prior permission of the competent authority under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 out of total area of Gata No.97 ka, area

0.162 hectare, an area of 0.0405 hectare has been sold off which should be 3 WRIC No. 9324 of 2025 vested in the State Government as it has been sold off in violation of the provisions of the Revenue Code as aforesaid. In pursuance of such case proceedings being initiated an order was passed on 09.9.2020 by the SDM BKT recording 0.0405 hectare of Gata No. 97 in the name of the State Government. Against the order dated 09.9.2020 the petitioner's father filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, i.e., R20201046001523 [Babu Pasi vs. State of U.P. and Others] under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The order dated

09.9.2020 was set aside on 16.8.2023 and the matter was remitted to the SDM to hear all the parties after giving proper notice and then decide the matter afresh. After the judgment of the Board of revenue dated 16.8.2023, opportunity was provided to all concerned and after perusal of the relevant revenue record it was found that the tenure holder Babu son of Kunwar had sold off part of Gata No.97 through two sale deeds executed on 23.3.2004 and both the vendees were belonging to the OBC Gadariya sub caste. The sale was carried out against the provisions of section 157 (A) of the UPZALR Act (now Section now Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code), hence, by an order dated 01.4.2024, 0.0405 hectare of Gata No.97 has been recorded in the name of the State Government in Khata No.582. A copy of the khatauni has been enclosed to the said instructions. It has also been stated in the said instructions that the vendees Arvind Kumar Pal, son of Shiv Balak Pal and Meera Pal wife of Chhatra Pal did not file any mutation application and, therefore, in the khatauni of 1419 – 1425 the name of Babu son of Kunwar has been shown. Had such vendees filed a mutation application then the State respondents would have made the correct entry in their favour. Instructions are kept on record. The petitioner in person on the basis of such instructions says that the sale deed that has been executed have not been registered by the Sub Registrar. He argued on such technicalities knowing fully well that his father had executed two sale deed as aforesaid on 23.3.2004 but the writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1, i.e. District Collector Lucknow to obtain the copy 4 WRIC No. 9324 of 2025 of alleged sale deed dated 23.3.2004, relating to sale of an area of 0.405 hectare of agricultural land of petitioner bearing Gata No. 97 ka , khata no.213, total area 0.1620 hectare situated in village Chandakodar, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow from the opposite party no.2 to 10 which are public servant, and in case of not providing the same by opposite party no.2 to 10, take necessary action against them in the interest of justice, expeditiously within the stipulated time as provided by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1, i.e., District Collector Lucknow to consider and decide the application of petitioner dated 14.8.2025 as contained in Annexure – 3 to this writ petition expeditiously within the stipulated time as provided by this Hon'ble Court." And the grounds taken in the writ petition are such as to cast imputation on the conduct of the State – respondents no.2 to 10 alleging that they have wrongly taken away the property of the father of the petitioner on the basis of forged sale deeds. Writ petition suffers from misrepresentation and concealment and is dismissed. September 24, 2025 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court instructions sent by SDM Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow wherein it has been stated that in revenue village Chandakodar Khatauni of falsi 1419-1424 shows Gata No.97 ka, area

0.1620 hectare in the name of Babu son of Kunvar who is the father of the petitioner as bhumidhar with transferable rights. Under CH form 45 during the consolidation operations Khata No.464 was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner under category 9 ka (kha) as bhumidhar with non transferable right. Later on after consolidation operations were finished, the right of Babu son of Kunvar matured under section 131 kha of the UPZALR Act and his name has been recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights under khatauni fasli 1407-1412 in the revenue records on 04.3.2001. The nominated panel lawyer of the Gram Sabha informed the SDM BKT regarding illegal sale and case no.T201810462060 [State vs. Babu and Others] under Section 104, 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code was instituted. Babu son of Kunwar who belonged to reserved category sub caste pasi had sold off 0.0202 hectare out of gata no.97 ka to one Arvind Kumar Pal son of Shiv Balak Pal who belonged to OBC Gadariya category resident of Gram Akohari, Majra Mampur Bana through registered sale deed executed on

23.03.2004, a copy of the sale deed has been enclosed to the said instructions. Later on 0.0202 hectare of gata no.97 ka was again sold off to Meera Pal wife of Chhatra Pal OBC category Gadariya, resident of village Akohari Marja, Mampur Bana on 23.3.2004 through registered sale deed, a copy of which has been enclosed to the said instructions. Such sale deeds executed in favour of two OBC sub caste Gadariya persons was made without prior permission of the competent authority under Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 out of total area of Gata No.97 ka, area

0.162 hectare, an area of 0.0405 hectare has been sold off which should be 3 WRIC No. 9324 of 2025 vested in the State Government as it has been sold off in violation of the provisions of the Revenue Code as aforesaid. In pursuance of such case proceedings being initiated an order was passed on 09.9.2020 by the SDM BKT recording 0.0405 hectare of Gata No. 97 in the name of the State Government. Against the order dated 09.9.2020 the petitioner's father filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, i.e., R20201046001523 [Babu Pasi vs. State of U.P. and Others] under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The order dated

09.9.2020 was set aside on 16.8.2023 and the matter was remitted to the SDM to hear all the parties after giving proper notice and then decide the matter afresh. After the judgment of the Board of revenue dated 16.8.2023, opportunity was provided to all concerned and after perusal of the relevant revenue record it was found that the tenure holder Babu son of Kunwar had sold off part of Gata No.97 through two sale deeds executed on 23.3.2004 and both the vendees were belonging to the OBC Gadariya sub caste. The sale was carried out against the provisions of section 157 (A) of the UPZALR Act (now Section now Section 98 of the U.P. Revenue Code), hence, by an order dated 01.4.2024, 0.0405 hectare of Gata No.97 has been recorded in the name of the State Government in Khata No.582. A copy of the khatauni has been enclosed to the said instructions. It has also been stated in the said instructions that the vendees Arvind Kumar Pal, son of Shiv Balak Pal and Meera Pal wife of Chhatra Pal did not file any mutation application and, therefore, in the khatauni of 1419 – 1425 the name of Babu son of Kunwar has been shown. Had such vendees filed a mutation application then the State respondents would have made the correct entry in their favour. Instructions are kept on record. The petitioner in person on the basis of such instructions says that the sale deed that has been executed have not been registered by the Sub Registrar. He argued on such technicalities knowing fully well that his father had executed two sale deed as aforesaid on 23.3.2004 but the writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1, i.e. District Collector Lucknow to obtain the copy 4 WRIC No. 9324 of 2025 of alleged sale deed dated 23.3.2004, relating to sale of an area of 0.405 hectare of agricultural land of petitioner bearing Gata No. 97 ka , khata no.213, total area 0.1620 hectare situated in village Chandakodar, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow from the opposite party no.2 to 10 which are public servant, and in case of not providing the same by opposite party no.2 to 10, take necessary action against them in the interest of justice, expeditiously within the stipulated time as provided by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1, i.e., District Collector Lucknow to consider and decide the application of petitioner dated 14.8.2025 as contained in Annexure – 3 to this writ petition expeditiously within the stipulated time as provided by this Hon'ble Court." And the grounds taken in the writ petition are such as to cast imputation on the conduct of the State – respondents no.2 to 10 alleging that they have wrongly taken away the property of the father of the petitioner on the basis of forged sale deeds. Writ petition suffers from misrepresentation and concealment and is dismissed. September 24, 2025 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench