Udayveer Singh v. Naval Kishore) was filed in the Court of Munsif

Late Shiv Pratap Singh (husband of Petitioner No.2- Smt. Sarita Singh). A private dispute arose with regard to possession between Udayveer Singh and one Naval Kishore, and Original Suit No. 102 of 1966 (Udayveer Singh Vs. Naval Kishore) was filed in the Court of Munsif (East), Hardoi, which was decided in favour of Udayveer Singh the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner on 16.12.1967. Naval Kishore preferred a Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1976 before the District Judge, Hardoi, which was dismissed. Thereafter, A Second Appeal No. 797/S/1980 was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed on 01.09.1988. Hence Udayveer Singh's title and interest was found to be established conclusively. After demise of Udayveer Singh, the land was developed by the petitioner and Shiv Pratap Singh in terms of the will. The name of the petitioners, however, was not reflected in the Revenue Records. The petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila under Section 33 of the U.P. Revenue Code for mutation proceedings, but no action was taken. Now, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has illegally installed a signboard over the petitioner's land describing it as property of Nagar Panchayat, bearing Gata No. 2030. A copy of photograph of such signboard installed by the Nagar Panchayat has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It mentions Gata No. 2030 besides two other Gatas 3 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025 i.e. Gata No. 2028 and 2031 as belonging to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

5. It has further been submitted that the petitioners' land has been claimed by Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni without any right in law and the petitioners have repeatedly approached the Revenue Authorities i.e. the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but no action has been taken against the Nagar Panchayat. The petitioners have also filed a Regular Suit for Permanent Injunction against the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni and the Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni praying for Permanent Injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property in question. Such Suit was filed on

01.09.2025 and only notice was issued on the application for interim injunction, which is now listed for orders on 30.11.2025.

6. It has also been submitted that the land of Gata No. 2030 and also part of Gata No. 2028 is ancestral land of the petitioners and the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has taken forcible possession over which and demolished tin sheds existing thereon without giving any notice to the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of Structures Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 decided on 13.11.2024 and has referred to Paragraphs 90 and 91 thereof.

8. We have perused the said paragraphs.

9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni, Hardoi has placed before this Court instructions sent by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat wherein it has been stated that in the first Consolidation Operation Gata No. 1090 was recorded as Banjar. In the second Consolidation Operation Gata No. 1090 was given new number 2030 and recorded as Banjar again. The Suit which was decided in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest did not implead either the State Government or the Nagar Panchayat concerned. 4 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025 Although the Suit has been decided, it cannot be said to be binding upon the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni or even the State Government as the relief sought was against private person. In 2018, Gata No. 2030, which was recorded as Banjar, was suo moto leased out on patta by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila to Ramsnehi S/o Ramlal, Jaskaran S/o Nanku and Brijesh S/o Munnalal. The then Chairperson and Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat Kachhuna Patseni initiated proceedings for cancellation of such patta by writing a letter to the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 29.11.2019.

10. In pursuance of such letter the Tehsildar, Shandila submitted a report on 25.01.2020 saying that the lease/patta allotment was against the Rules. Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni, thereafter, lodged F.I.R. against the then Lekhpal in the Police Station concerned on 23.09.2020.

11. It has also been stated in the said instructions that the land in question was in possession of Nagar Panchayat since the very beginning and its medh/boundary was demolished by Dharmendra Singh S/o Dinesh Pal Singh, for which complaint was made on 05.09.2019 by the then Chairperson to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila. On 16.09.2019, the Area Lekhpal alongwith the Police Force had again marked boundaries and given actual physical possession to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni. Again private persons tried to take over the unauthorized possession of the land in question and Case No. 01222 of 2020, 'State Vs. Ramsnehi and Others' was filed in the Court of ADM(Finance and Revenue), which was decided on 22.09.2020 against private persons. During the pendency of this case Kallu S/o Late Aladin, Sanjay Kumar S/o Deep Narayan, Rasool Mohammad S/o Cheeda and Mohd. Kayum S/o Allahrakhu had set up shanties/temporary shops on this land belonging to Nagar Panchayat. Nagar Panchayat wrote repeated letters to the Revenue Authorities and to the Police for removal for such unauthorized possession and also give notices to all such persons, who had set up temporary shops over land belonging to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

12. The decision of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) in Case No. 1222 of 2020 has been enclosed to the said instructions. 5 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025

13. It is the case of the petitioner that they have remained in possession over the land in question since long and the respondents have not issued any notice to them.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, on the basis of instructions, says that the petitioners' names are not recorded in the Revenue Records over Gata No. 2030 or any other Gata i.e. 2028 and 2031 and they were not found in actual physical possession of land belonging to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni, therefore, notices were not issued to them, proceedings were initiated only against persons who were found in actual physical possession and that too unauthorizedly. The ADM (Finance and Revenue) has decided Case No. 1222 of 2020 on 21.12.2022 in favour of Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

15. It has also been submitted that almost the same relief has been claimed by the petitioners in Regular Suit filed before the Civil Judge where notices were issued on 01.09.2025 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division (East), Hardoi and the date fixed in the matter is 30.11.2025.

16. It has further been submitted that after decision of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) in favour of the Nagar Panchayat Kachhuna Patseni notices were again issued to the persons who were found in illegal possession and after detailed correspondence with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila and the District Magistrate, Hardoi, the encroachment was removed on 24.09.2025 with the help of the Revenue Officials and the Police Team by the officials of the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni on 24.09.2025 and barricading was done and board installed on the property in question.

17. It is admitted fact by the petitioners in the writ petition that their names have not yet been recorded in the Revenue Records and the land continues to be recorded as Banjar.

18. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that only because it is recorded as Banjar, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni cannot claim any title over it.

19. We are of the opinion that Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has 6 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025 been vested with land which earlier belonged to Gram Sabha concerned after its establishment and it cannot be said that since the land in question is recorded as Banjar, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has no control over it, but the petitioners whose names have not been recorded in the Revenue Records are the owners of such land.

20. However, since there is a Regular Suit pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division(East), Hardoi it would be appropriate for the petitioners to move an appropriate interim relief application in the said Suit or file an amendment application claiming the direction of title as it is undisputed land within the municipal limits of Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) October 17, 2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Late Shiv Pratap Singh (husband of Petitioner No.2- Smt. Sarita Singh). A private dispute arose with regard to possession between Udayveer Singh and one Naval Kishore, and Original Suit No. 102 of 1966 (Udayveer Singh Vs. Naval Kishore) was filed in the Court of Munsif (East), Hardoi, which was decided in favour of Udayveer Singh the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner on 16.12.1967. Naval Kishore preferred a Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1976 before the District Judge, Hardoi, which was dismissed. Thereafter, A Second Appeal No. 797/S/1980 was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed on 01.09.1988. Hence Udayveer Singh's title and interest was found to be established conclusively. After demise of Udayveer Singh, the land was developed by the petitioner and Shiv Pratap Singh in terms of the will. The name of the petitioners, however, was not reflected in the Revenue Records. The petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila under Section 33 of the U.P. Revenue Code for mutation proceedings, but no action was taken. Now, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has illegally installed a signboard over the petitioner's land describing it as property of Nagar Panchayat, bearing Gata No. 2030. A copy of photograph of such signboard installed by the Nagar Panchayat has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It mentions Gata No. 2030 besides two other Gatas 3 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025 i.e. Gata No. 2028 and 2031 as belonging to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

5. It has further been submitted that the petitioners' land has been claimed by Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni without any right in law and the petitioners have repeatedly approached the Revenue Authorities i.e. the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but no action has been taken against the Nagar Panchayat. The petitioners have also filed a Regular Suit for Permanent Injunction against the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni and the Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni praying for Permanent Injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property in question. Such Suit was filed on

01.09.2025 and only notice was issued on the application for interim injunction, which is now listed for orders on 30.11.2025.

6. It has also been submitted that the land of Gata No. 2030 and also part of Gata No. 2028 is ancestral land of the petitioners and the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has taken forcible possession over which and demolished tin sheds existing thereon without giving any notice to the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of Structures Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 decided on 13.11.2024 and has referred to Paragraphs 90 and 91 thereof.

8. We have perused the said paragraphs.

9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni, Hardoi has placed before this Court instructions sent by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat wherein it has been stated that in the first Consolidation Operation Gata No. 1090 was recorded as Banjar. In the second Consolidation Operation Gata No. 1090 was given new number 2030 and recorded as Banjar again. The Suit which was decided in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest did not implead either the State Government or the Nagar Panchayat concerned. 4 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025 Although the Suit has been decided, it cannot be said to be binding upon the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni or even the State Government as the relief sought was against private person. In 2018, Gata No. 2030, which was recorded as Banjar, was suo moto leased out on patta by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila to Ramsnehi S/o Ramlal, Jaskaran S/o Nanku and Brijesh S/o Munnalal. The then Chairperson and Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat Kachhuna Patseni initiated proceedings for cancellation of such patta by writing a letter to the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 29.11.2019.

10. In pursuance of such letter the Tehsildar, Shandila submitted a report on 25.01.2020 saying that the lease/patta allotment was against the Rules. Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni, thereafter, lodged F.I.R. against the then Lekhpal in the Police Station concerned on 23.09.2020.

11. It has also been stated in the said instructions that the land in question was in possession of Nagar Panchayat since the very beginning and its medh/boundary was demolished by Dharmendra Singh S/o Dinesh Pal Singh, for which complaint was made on 05.09.2019 by the then Chairperson to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila. On 16.09.2019, the Area Lekhpal alongwith the Police Force had again marked boundaries and given actual physical possession to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni. Again private persons tried to take over the unauthorized possession of the land in question and Case No. 01222 of 2020, 'State Vs. Ramsnehi and Others' was filed in the Court of ADM(Finance and Revenue), which was decided on 22.09.2020 against private persons. During the pendency of this case Kallu S/o Late Aladin, Sanjay Kumar S/o Deep Narayan, Rasool Mohammad S/o Cheeda and Mohd. Kayum S/o Allahrakhu had set up shanties/temporary shops on this land belonging to Nagar Panchayat. Nagar Panchayat wrote repeated letters to the Revenue Authorities and to the Police for removal for such unauthorized possession and also give notices to all such persons, who had set up temporary shops over land belonging to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

12. The decision of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) in Case No. 1222 of 2020 has been enclosed to the said instructions. 5 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025

13. It is the case of the petitioner that they have remained in possession over the land in question since long and the respondents have not issued any notice to them.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4, on the basis of instructions, says that the petitioners' names are not recorded in the Revenue Records over Gata No. 2030 or any other Gata i.e. 2028 and 2031 and they were not found in actual physical possession of land belonging to Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni, therefore, notices were not issued to them, proceedings were initiated only against persons who were found in actual physical possession and that too unauthorizedly. The ADM (Finance and Revenue) has decided Case No. 1222 of 2020 on 21.12.2022 in favour of Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

15. It has also been submitted that almost the same relief has been claimed by the petitioners in Regular Suit filed before the Civil Judge where notices were issued on 01.09.2025 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division (East), Hardoi and the date fixed in the matter is 30.11.2025.

16. It has further been submitted that after decision of the ADM (Finance and Revenue) in favour of the Nagar Panchayat Kachhuna Patseni notices were again issued to the persons who were found in illegal possession and after detailed correspondence with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shandila and the District Magistrate, Hardoi, the encroachment was removed on 24.09.2025 with the help of the Revenue Officials and the Police Team by the officials of the Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni on 24.09.2025 and barricading was done and board installed on the property in question.

17. It is admitted fact by the petitioners in the writ petition that their names have not yet been recorded in the Revenue Records and the land continues to be recorded as Banjar.

18. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that only because it is recorded as Banjar, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni cannot claim any title over it.

19. We are of the opinion that Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has 6 WRIC No. 10247 of 2025 been vested with land which earlier belonged to Gram Sabha concerned after its establishment and it cannot be said that since the land in question is recorded as Banjar, Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni has no control over it, but the petitioners whose names have not been recorded in the Revenue Records are the owners of such land.

20. However, since there is a Regular Suit pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division(East), Hardoi it would be appropriate for the petitioners to move an appropriate interim relief application in the said Suit or file an amendment application claiming the direction of title as it is undisputed land within the municipal limits of Nagar Panchayat, Kachhuna Patseni.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) October 17, 2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench