Allahabad High Court
Ramakant Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76544
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 5952 of 2025
Ramakant Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rama Niwas Pathak, Ram Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
1. Heard.
2. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya.
3. By the said order, the Tehsildar has cancelled the entries of various Gatas as had been entered in the name of the petitioner on the ground that the said entries has been recorded on the basis of a fake amaldaramad.
4. The ground of challenge as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially an order dated 16.02.1955 was passed by the Tehsildar whereby the name of the grandfather of the petitioner namely Sri Raj Bahadur was directed to be entered in the land records pertaining to various Gatas. A copy of entry as made in the Khatauni has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition.
5. Subsequent to death of Sri Raj Bahadur, the name of his son namely Sri Shiv Murti i.e. the father of the petitioner was entered vide order dated 10.05.1965, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition.
6. Subsequent thereto, the name of the petitioner has been entered for the aforesaid Gatas vide amaldaramad.
7. All of a sudden by means of the order impugned the Tehsildar has cancelled the name as recorded of the petitioner on the ground that the amaldaramad itself is fake.
8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although he is not having the copy of the order that had been passed by the Tehsildar dated 16.02.1955 on the basis of which the entry of the aforesaid Gatas was recorded in the name of his grandfather namely Sri Raj Bahadur yet the order dated 16.02.1955 was challenged by means of a Revision No.4580 of 2024 in re: Gauri Shankar vs. Ramakant under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The learned Board of Revenue vide its order dated 27.11.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, has dismissed the revision. The petitioner had applied under Right to Information Act for information from the Board of Revenue to indicate as to whether any such Parwana was issued which has been replied to vide reply dated 28.07.2025, a copy of which is Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit, per which reply is 'yes' and the certified copy of the said Parwana has also been issued to the petitioner, which is part of Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit.
9. The contention is that the Tehsildar has acted in haste in cancelling the entry as had been made way back in the year 1955 after a period of almost 70 years by recording that the Parwana that had been issued is itself fake and fictitious although the records are otherwise. It is also contended that it was always open for the respondents to have verified from the Board of Revenue before which revision had been filed by Sri Gauri Shankar where the order dated 16.02.1955 had been scrutinized by the Board of Revenue and consequently without due diligence being adopted by the Tehsildar, cancellation of an entry made initially in the name of grandfather of the petitioner, thereafter the father and subsequently in the name of the petitioner could not have been cancelled in a cursory manner which has been done in the instant case.
10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has justified the order impugned on the ground that the amaldaramad has itself been found to be fake. However, learned Standing Counsel fairly admits that it is the order dated 16.02.1955 that had been challenged before the Board of Revenue which should have been verified from the original records from the Board of Revenue itself more particularly when the petitioner while filing the rejoinder affidavit has annexed a copy of the information given under RTI Act of the amaldaramad having in fact been issued by the Board of Revenue.
11. Learned Standing Counsel has thus suggested that the order impugned may be set-aside leaving it open to the respondents to verify the aforesaid and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued setting aside the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya. However, the respondents are at liberty of passing a fresh order after verifying the genuineness of the amaldaramat and the order dated 16.02.1955 that had initially been issued by the Tehsildar.
(Abdul Moin,J.) November 21, 2025 A. Katiyar