Allahabad High Court
Bhagwan Shankar vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) -Iii, ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:71632
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 10778 of 2025
Bhagwan Shankar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) -Iii, Lucknow Division, Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Suresh Sharma, Anand Singh, Anurag Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Mohd. Nafees
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Mohd. Nafees, learned counsel for respondent no.5, who has filed caveat on her behalf.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2025, passed by Additional Commissioner, (Judicial)-III, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 95/2024, Computerized No. C-20240000000095; under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, Bhagwan Shankar Vs. Up Ziladhikari as well as order dated 18.12.2023, passed by the Up Ziladhikari, Lakhimpur Kheri in Appeal No. 8441/2022, under Section 35(2) U.P. Revenue Code 2006; Bhagwan Shankar Vs. Gopalkant Sharma & others and order dated 21.03.2022 and 10.05.2022, passed by Naib Tehsildar, Kheri, Tehsil Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 9820/2020/ Computerized Case No. T202010430109820; under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Gopal Kant Vs. Hardwari, respectively contained as Annexures No.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give any effect of the judgment and order impugned in the writ petition, as contained in Annexure No.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition."
4. The dispute in the present case according to the petitioner pertains to the succession of property of one Hardwari, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Hardwari son of Mool Chandra who, according to the petitioner was a Class-IV tenure holder of the land situated at Gata No. 4/0.223, 5/0.206, 6/0.077 and 7/0.081 hectares, situated at village Kheri, Pargana Kheri, Tehsil and District Lakhimpur Kheri. After the death of Mool Chandra the land came to be recorded in the name of Hardwari and after the death of Hardwari the land came to be recorded in the name of descendants.
5. According to the petitioner, it is after the lapse of 17 years, the opposite party no.4 had moved an application under Section 33(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, stating that the land belongs to his grand-father, namely, Mool Chandra, who was survived by 4 sons, namely, Ram Narayan, Hardwari Lal, Baldeo Prasad and Ramadhar while Gopal Kant was the son of Ramadhar. It is further stated that Ramadhar was survived by two sons, namely, Shyamkant, husband of opposite party no.5 and Gopalkant Sharma- opposite party no.4. For the purpose of proepr appreciation and clarification, the genealogy (pedigree) is stated hereunder:-
Hardwari (Died) son of Mul Chandra
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Shanker (Died Daya Shanker (Died)
------------------ ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------
Bhagwan Shankar Prahlad Kumar Rupesh Surj Mukhi Jagdish Kumar Krishna Kumar (Revisionist)
6. It is on the application that the Naib Tehsildar, Kheri who had passed previous order dated 21.3.2022 recorded the name of Bhagwan Shankar (petitioner) and he maintained his previous order dated 21.3.2022, whereby he mutated the disputed land in favour of all the descendants of Mullu and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
7. Against the order dated 10.5.2022, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the S.D.M. Lakhimpur Kheri. The S.D.M. also considered the entire family tree of Mool Chandra @ Mullu, who had four sons, out of which, Ram Narayan had died issue-less and accordingly, after the death of Mullu, the land came to be recorded in the name of his surviving sons, namely, Baldeo Prasad and Hardwari and due to omission the name of Ramadhar was not recorded. He has further considered the fact that after the death of Hardwari the land came to in his place name of Ramashankar and Dayashankar was recorded. He has further considered the fact that after the death of Mullu, in fact the land ought to have been recorded in the name of three surviving sons, namely, Hardwari, Baldeo Prasad and Ramadhar and in the present proceedings the notices were issued to all the legal heirs and after considering the entire objections he was of the view that the private respondents who are the descendants of Ramadhar ought to be included in the list of successors of Mullu and consequently the appeal preferred by the petitioner was found to be bereft of merits and accordingly dismissed. Similarly the revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
8. Before this Court the petitioner while, assailing the validity of all the orders, has submitted that before the S.D.M. that he was neither party nor he was heard and consequently the said order is arbitrary, illegal and deserve to be set aside. The petitioner on the pointed query being made does not dispute the list of legal heirs of Mullu and that Mullu had four sons and even that the private respondents are legal heirs of Ramadhar son of Mullu.
9. It is further stated that at the appellate stage as well as in the revision the matter was decided on merits and all the contentions and objections raised by the petitioner was duly considered and infirmity of hearing which may have been existing at this stage at the level of Tehsildar stood cured when appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were duly considered and decided on merits. He further submits that no purpose would be served by directing redetermination the objection of the petitioner pertaining to the order passed by the Tehsildar, in as much as, the petitioner himself does not dispute the family tree or that the private respondents are co-tenants along with the petitioner of the disputed property.
10. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. The undisputed facts to the present case are that the present dispute pertains to the successors of the property of Mullu @ Mool Chandra son of Salik Ram. Mool Chandra had four sons, namely, Ram Narayan, Hardwari lal, Baldeo Prasad and Ramadhar and somehow after death of Mullu the land came to be recorded in the name of Hardwari Lal and Baldeo Prasad in as much as Ram Narayan had predeceased Mullu and name of Ramadhar was left out from being recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner is the son of Hardwari Lal and it is in the aforesaid circumstances that Sub Divisional Magistrate int he proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code had recorded the names of all the legal heirs surviving legal heirs of Mullu. The petitioner had objections and was aggrieved by the order of Tehsildar dated 10.5.2022 and accordingly had preferred an appeal and subsequently a revision. The only grievance raised by the petitioner, was that before the Tehsildar, he was not heard. It is noticed that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority at the behest of the petitioner has considered and decided the matter on merits.
11. I find that the petitioner was able to argue the matter on merits before both the authorities and after considering the entire family tree and the rights of the parties the impugned order has been passed dividing the property and recording the name of all the surviving successors of Mullu. The petitioner does not dispute this aspect of the matter and accordingly once the petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to the merits of the dispute that no useful purpose will be served and merely remitting the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding afresh after hearing the petitioner.
12. This Court is of the considered view that even if order has been passed, is violation of principle of natural justice, the orders can be set aside, only when prejudice is demonstrated before the Court. In the present case even though opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner, still I do not find any prejudice to have been caused to the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner does not dispute the co-tenancy of the private respondents or that they are not entitled to be recorded as successors of Mullu to the disputed land.
13. It is for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for interference in the present matter and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
November 11, 2025
Muk
