/11751/2025 of RASEED AHMAD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL, AYODHYA / FAIZABAD MANDAL, AYODHYA AND OTHERS on 9 December 2025

1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in te nature of certiorari the set a side the arbitrary, illegal, against the provision U/S 1(Ka) of the Sec. 195 of UPZA & LR Act 1950, orders/ judgments dated 26.7.2005 passed by The Additional Collector/ADM, O.P. No.2, in Suit No.615/1990, under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Case Style-Raseed VS Jethu and others. As well as order dated 30.10.2015 passed b Additional Commissioner Faizabad/Ayodhya O.P. No.1 in revision No.2610/Sultanpur, U/s 333 UPZA Act, Case Style - Raseed VS Jethu and others, as contained Annexure No.1 & 2 As well as allow the same suit No.615/1990 of the petitioner as contained Annexure No.3 to this petition."

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to gata No.2396 situated at Village Sarai Khema, Tehsil & Pargana Amethi, District Sultanpur which is recorded as Ushar. It is the case of the petitioner that pattas have been allotted to the private respondents on the said land. It is

3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Raseed Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya / Faizabad Mandal, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s)

stated that the petitioner is in possession of the said land for more than fifty years and also planted trees over the said land. It is stated that the allotment has been made on 17.8.1990 and the complaint was made by the petitioner under Section 160 of U.P.Z.and L.R. Act and submitted that the land is not fit for agriculture and trees are standing on the said land. We further find that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category and is in occupation of the said land and, therefore, rights over the said land deserves to be settled in favour of the petitioner. The authorities below have called for relevant records and considering the grievance raised by the petitioner it was found that the claim of the petitioner for occupation of the said land could not be established nor could he establish existence of any grove on the said land and further it was found that the said land was fit for agriculture.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid finding has preferred present petition. Even in the present writ petition we do not find any materiel which can indicate that the petitioner has any right, title or interest over the disputed land and further there is no material with regard to existence of any grove over the said land or that the land is not fit for agricultural. These finding have been consistently recorded by the authorities below and are not likely to be interfered by this Court in proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Apart from the above, we do not find that the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the disputed land and, therefore, no ground to interfere in the impugned orders is made out. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

5. December 9, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 11751 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench