Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Other on 15 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:82132 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9081 of 2025 Pushpendra Kumar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Other .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shiv Murti Kushwaha Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private respndent and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, leared AGA for State.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue an order or direction to set aside the order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure No. 06) passed by the Sessions Judge, District Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2025 (Chandra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), as well as the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure No. 04) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Siyana, District Bulandshahr, in Case No. 6626 of 2023 (State vs. Pushpendra and others) under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agricultural land bearing Gata No.494/2, measuring 0.025 hectare, was originally owned by Hriday Ram, who sold the same in favour of Ramsaran Giri in the year 2012. Thereafter, Ramsaran Giri executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2022. Both sale transactions were duly completed through registered sale deeds. Learned counsel further submitted that mutation could not take place after execution of the aforesaid sale deeds due to the pendency of consolidation proceedings, which were eventually cancelled in the year 2022. As no mutation was effected in favour of either Ramsaran Giri or the petitioner, the name of respondent no. 2, Chandrapal Singh, son of Hriday Ram, was mutated in the revenue records after the death of his father. Taking advantage of his name being recorded in the revenue records, respondent no. 2 allegedly took illegal possession of the land bearing Gata No.494. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated at the instance of respondent no. 3. The said proceedings were decided on 29.01.2025, whereby the disputed land was attached and a receiver was appointed for the sale of the standing sugarcane crop. The order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Case No. 6626 of 2023 (State vs. Pushpendra and others) under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was challenged by respondent no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2025 (Chandra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). By order dated 30.06.2025, the Revisional Court set aside the said order and directed the Station House Officer to restore possession of the land to respondent no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is illegal. He contended that the issue is clear, as two successive sale deeds were executed, first in favour of Ramsaran Giri in 2012 and thereafter in favour of the petitioner in 2022. It was further submitted that possession of the land was never with respondent no. 2 after execution of the first sale deed in 2012. The standing sugarcane crop was raised by the petitioner, and the amount received from its sale, along with possession of the land, has now been handed over to respondent no. 2 pursuant to the revisional order. The direction to hand over possession to respondent no. 2 is illegal, as his claim of ownership has arisen only due to mutation, which could not be effected earlier owing to pending consolidation proceedings.
5. Learned AGA for the State and Sri Surya Pratap Chauhan, holding brief of Sri Shiv Murti Kushwaha, learned counsel for the private respondent, submitted that the dispute pertains to the title of the land. If the petitioner claims ownership, he may approach the appropriate forum for correction of the revenue records.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2025 (Chandra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), as well as the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Siyana, District Bulandshahr, in Case No. 6626 of 2023 (State vs. Pushpendra and others) under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
7. It is admitted that the sale deeds executed in favour of Ramsaran Giri and the petitioner have been challenged by respondent no. 2 before the competent civil court. The petitioner has also instituted a suit for correction of revenue records before the revenue court. Thus, the dispute clearly pertains to the title of the land. There is no dispute that the entries in the revenue records stand in favour of respondent no. 2. Although such entries may be subject to challenge, it is settled law that a person whose name is recorded in the revenue records is presumed to be in possession.
8. So far as the order passed by the Revisional Court is concerned, it has clearly directed that possession of the land shall remain with respondent no. 2 until the dispute is adjudicated by the competent court. It is settled law that where a dispute relates primarily to title and possession of property, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Court setting aside the order of the SDM does not warrant interference.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2025 (Chandra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), as well as the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Siyana, District Bulandshahr, in Case No. 6626 of 2023 (State vs. Pushpendra and others) under Section 145 Cr.P.C., are upheld.
10. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) April 15, 2026 Mukesh