Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Arun Kumar Singh (In Person) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 35900 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 35900 ALL
Judgement Date : 19 December, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Arun Kumar Singh (In Person) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 December, 2023

Author: Saurabh Srivastava

Bench: Saurabh Srivastava





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240535
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40534 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh (In Person) And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, in person, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been instituted for seeking order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the R.C. Prapatra-19 dated 01-10-2022 issued by the respondent no.4 in computerized case no. T202214360204337.

3. Learned counsel who is appearing in person submitted that although the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been initiated in the shape of Case No.T202214360204337, wherein a detailed objection has already been preferred in respect to the report submitted by concerned Lekhpal through which it has been indicated that the petitioners are having illegal possession over plot no.464 situated at village-Dalupur, tehsil-Badlapur, district-Jaunpur and the same is still pending to be finally decided by the respondent no.4.

4. On a precise query made before learned counsel/petitioner regarding cause of action for filing instant writ petition, it is submitted that there is an apprehension of demolition of old constructed house over the property which has been recorded in the revenue record as abadi.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the writ petition as well as rebutted the contention as submitted by learned counsel appearing in person on the ground that in the strict compliance of the provisions contained under U.P. Revenue Code, proceedings under Section 67 has already been initiated and the same is still pending to be finally adjudicated by the respondent no.4 and as per the documentary evidence and submissions made by the learned counsel/petitioner, it is crystal clear that the objection preferred by him is still pending to be considered by the respondent no.4.

6. Regarding apprehension of demolition, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the entire proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code shall be finalised only after outcome of appeal, if preferred, being aggrieved by any of the order passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code and as such there is hardly any occasion arises in favour of the petitioner/learned counsel who is appearing in person for filing the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing in person and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, no adjudication has been made over the objection preferred by the petitioner till today, although by way of perusal of the record appended along with the petition it is revealed that no specific application for seeking status quo during pendency of the proceedings under Section 67 has ever been preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.4.

8. Submission extended by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that no writ petition is maintainable in pursuance of any apprehension caused to the petitioner, which is settled in catena of judgments pronounced by the Apex Court as well as by the co-ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court.

9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition is hereby disposed of, however, petitioner/learned counsel appearing in person will be at liberty to prefer separate application for seeking status quo during the pendency of the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the respondent no.4 and the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.4 within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 19.12.2023

pks

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter