Allahabad High Court
WRIC/11127/2025 of SHYAM MOHAN SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE, LKO AND OTHERS on 3 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11127 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Ayushi Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabhakar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present writ
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 11127 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Ms. Ayushi Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabhakar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District
- Sultanpur whereby the application for mutation preferred by private respondents has been allowed.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the disputed land has been recorded in the name of petitioner and without making the petitioner as a party the application U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code has been allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 02.09.2025 has been assailed in the present writ petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing an appeal U/S 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code and further submits that as far as the order dated 02.09.2025 is concerned the petitioner has already moved an application for recall under proviso to Section 209 of U.P. Revenue Code before the Nayab Tehsildar and for the same cause of action writ proceedings would not be maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid facts and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prabhakar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shyam Mohan Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko And Others .....Respondent(s)
seeks liberty to file proper application for recall before the Nayab Tehsildar and confines her prayer for a direction to Nayab Tehsildar to decide the said application in a time bound manner.
6. In view of the above, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move proper application for recall before Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur within next two weeks and in case such an application is moved within such time, the said authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. December 3, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 11127 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench