Srikant Bajpai v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue

Heard Sri Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that one Lallu Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was granted Patta over the land being Gata No. 481Cha, area 1.2650 hectares situated in Village - Rajapur Salempur, Pargana - Mahona, Tehsil - Bakshi Ka Talab, District - Lucknow.

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land which was subject matter of allotment and the land which has been declared to be surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and subsequently, name of Lallu Singh was also recorded in the revenue records in fasli year 1398-1403. It has been submitted that an application was given by Lallu Singh for declaring him to be bhoomidhar of the said land. Revenue reports were called for and it was found that no patta was issued in favour of Lallu Singh and therefore, in the said circumstances no approval was found with regard to Lallu Singh and therefore no valid patta could have been granted in his favour and therefore application given by Lallu Singh was rejected and simultaneously in exercise of power under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, land stood restored as surplus in the hands of the State 2 WRIC No. 11363 of 2025 Government.

Lallu Singh being predecessor in interest of the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 28.07.2010, preferred revision which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow by order dated 31.10.2011 and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. It is during pendency of the remand proceedings that Lallu Singh died and in the meanwhile, petitioner claimed title and interest in the said land on the basis of will executed by Lallu Singh. The petitioner in this regard has moved an application for being made party before the revisional Court.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, rejected the claim of the petitioner by means of order dated 04.08.2016, against which the petitioner has preferred appeal, which was rejected by order dated 01.11.2016 and even review preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 27.02.2023. All the aforesaid orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel has first raised question with regard to delay and laches in filing present writ petition, stating that appellate order was passed on 02.11.2016, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and there is no provision of filing review and therefore petitioner was pursuing a remedy which was not provided for in the statute.

Apart from the above, this Court find that even in the present writ petition there is no copy of Patta nor copy of any proceedings which can indicate that there is any semblance of the procedure being followed at the time of grant of Patta. Even if it is presumed that Patta was validly given to Lallu Singh, bhoomidhari rights were never conferred upon him so as to transfer the said land and therefore this Court finds that even the land could not have been bequeathed by Lallu Singh in favour of petitioner by a will.

In absence of any material indicating that firstly, the land was validly allotted in favour of Lallu Singh and secondly, he had obtained bhoomidhari rights over the said land, no right of title and interest can be devolved upon the petitioner on the basis of will executed by Lallu Singh. 3 WRIC No. 11363 of 2025 Needless to say that the petitioner cannot have better rights than his predecessor in interest.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or by the appellate Court rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

In the light of above, no interference is required in the orders impugned in the present writ petition.

The writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. December 3, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench