Urmila Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko And Others

1. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated the Additional Commissioner 29.09.2025 passed by (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya as well as the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar. Tehsil Nawabganj, district Barabanki contained as Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the Writ Petition respectively. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in gata no. 838 measuring area 0.196 hectare situated in village Badel, Pargana and Tehsil Nawabganj, district Barabanki." Factual Matrix

3. The land of gata no.838 area 0.196 hectare was settled in favour of the petitioner u/s 122B(4)(F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act, 1950'). Subsequently, an application by 2 WRIC No. 11210 of 2025 one Rajendra Prasad was filed in 2011 recalling the order dated 16.10.1989 on the ground that he was in possession, not the present petitioner. That application was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 28.01.2012 and order was also passed to record the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner also moved an application u/s 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'the Code, 2006') for demarcation of land. Only then she came to know that her name has still not been mutated in the revenue record in pursuance of order dated 16.10.1989. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for implementation of orders dated 16.10.1989 and 18.01.2012. This application was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2025 and Tehsildar was directed to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue record and the name of the petitioner was also recorded in pursuance thereof.

4. Thereafter, one Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate at Civil recalled Court, Barabanki, moved an application before Tehsildar relating to name of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to the land in question. The Tehsildar without giving any opportunity of hearing vide the order dated order dated 27.02.2025 31.01.2025 on the ground that petitioner was not in possession over the land in question. Against the order dated 27.02.2025, petitioner preferred a writ petition no.2636 of 2025 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 24.03.2025 permitting approach before the appropriate forum. As this question cannot be decided in exercise of power u/s 226 of the Constitution of India, thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 27.02.2025. Though, he the petitioner should have moved the said application before Tehsildar for recalling the order dated 27.02.2025 and the order dated 27.02.2025 was administrative order. This revision was dismissed by the impugned order dated

29.09.2025 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which is under challenge in the 3 WRIC No. 11210 of 2025 present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that passing impugned order, Additional Commissioner/revisional authority has failed to consider the order dated 27.02.2025 which was absolutely erroneous as same was passed on the administrative side and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, will amount to recalling the order dated 16.10.1989 passed by the SDM.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 29.09.2025 as the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar was an administrative order which is not reviseable because as per Section 210 of the Code, 2006, only order passed in judicial proceeding could have been challenged. However, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that order dated 27.02.2025 was passed on administrative side and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ignoring the fact that the order dated 16.10.1989 was passed by the SDM. Therefore, unless the order passed by the SDM dated 16.10.1989 is recalled, he has no authority to pass order to delete the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. revision against

7. Considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of record, it is not in dispute that petitioner has incorrectly filed the administrative order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Additional Commissioner Ayodhya, which does not lie against the administrative order under the Code, 2006. However, it is also clear that till date the order dated 16.10.1989 passed by the SDM concerned has not been recalled. Therefore, the Tehsildar in administrative side cannot delete the name of the petitioner and that too, without giving any opportunity of 4 WRIC No. 11210 of 2025 hearing.

8. Even this court vide order dated 24.03.2025 directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by initiating the appropriate proceeding for mutation but the petitioner incorrectly filed revision instead of filing application before the concerned authority.

9. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file recall application before the Tehsildar to recall the order dated 27.02.2025, within 15 days from today. In case such application is filed, same shall be decided by the Tehsildar concerned within a period of 60 days thereafter.

10. Till any order is passed by the Tehsildar concerned on the application of the petitioner, status quo should be maintained, as far as the possession as well as name in the revenue record regarding gata no.838 area 0.196 hectare is concerned. December 1, 2025 S.C. (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated the Additional Commissioner 29.09.2025 passed by (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya as well as the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar. Tehsil Nawabganj, district Barabanki contained as Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the Writ Petition respectively. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in gata no. 838 measuring area 0.196 hectare situated in village Badel, Pargana and Tehsil Nawabganj, district Barabanki." Factual Matrix

3. The land of gata no.838 area 0.196 hectare was settled in favour of the petitioner u/s 122B(4)(F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act, 1950'). Subsequently, an application by 2 WRIC No. 11210 of 2025 one Rajendra Prasad was filed in 2011 recalling the order dated 16.10.1989 on the ground that he was in possession, not the present petitioner. That application was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 28.01.2012 and order was also passed to record the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner also moved an application u/s 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'the Code, 2006') for demarcation of land. Only then she came to know that her name has still not been mutated in the revenue record in pursuance of order dated 16.10.1989. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for implementation of orders dated 16.10.1989 and 18.01.2012. This application was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2025 and Tehsildar was directed to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue record and the name of the petitioner was also recorded in pursuance thereof.

4. Thereafter, one Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate at Civil recalled Court, Barabanki, moved an application before Tehsildar relating to name of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to the land in question. The Tehsildar without giving any opportunity of hearing vide the order dated order dated 27.02.2025 31.01.2025 on the ground that petitioner was not in possession over the land in question. Against the order dated 27.02.2025, petitioner preferred a writ petition no.2636 of 2025 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 24.03.2025 permitting approach before the appropriate forum. As this question cannot be decided in exercise of power u/s 226 of the Constitution of India, thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 27.02.2025. Though, he the petitioner should have moved the said application before Tehsildar for recalling the order dated 27.02.2025 and the order dated 27.02.2025 was administrative order. This revision was dismissed by the impugned order dated

29.09.2025 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which is under challenge in the 3 WRIC No. 11210 of 2025 present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that passing impugned order, Additional Commissioner/revisional authority has failed to consider the order dated 27.02.2025 which was absolutely erroneous as same was passed on the administrative side and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, will amount to recalling the order dated 16.10.1989 passed by the SDM.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 29.09.2025 as the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar was an administrative order which is not reviseable because as per Section 210 of the Code, 2006, only order passed in judicial proceeding could have been challenged. However, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that order dated 27.02.2025 was passed on administrative side and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ignoring the fact that the order dated 16.10.1989 was passed by the SDM. Therefore, unless the order passed by the SDM dated 16.10.1989 is recalled, he has no authority to pass order to delete the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. revision against

7. Considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of record, it is not in dispute that petitioner has incorrectly filed the administrative order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Tehsildar. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Additional Commissioner Ayodhya, which does not lie against the administrative order under the Code, 2006. However, it is also clear that till date the order dated 16.10.1989 passed by the SDM concerned has not been recalled. Therefore, the Tehsildar in administrative side cannot delete the name of the petitioner and that too, without giving any opportunity of 4 WRIC No. 11210 of 2025 hearing.

8. Even this court vide order dated 24.03.2025 directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by initiating the appropriate proceeding for mutation but the petitioner incorrectly filed revision instead of filing application before the concerned authority.

9. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file recall application before the Tehsildar to recall the order dated 27.02.2025, within 15 days from today. In case such application is filed, same shall be decided by the Tehsildar concerned within a period of 60 days thereafter.

10. Till any order is passed by the Tehsildar concerned on the application of the petitioner, status quo should be maintained, as far as the possession as well as name in the revenue record regarding gata no.838 area 0.196 hectare is concerned. December 1, 2025 S.C. (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench