Suneel Kumar Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 18 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Suneel Kumar Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 18 May, 2026

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:35553
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - C No. - 4994 of 2026   
 
   Suneel Kumar Gupta And Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Manjusha Kapil   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 

 
Court No. - 6
 
   
 
 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2020 as well as order dated 25.10.2023.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property was initially owned by the great grandfather of the petitioners namely Asarfi Lal. The said Asarfi Lal, according to the petitioners, was survived by one Kashiram, the great grandfather of the petitioners. Kashiram had three sons namely Dargari, Dwarika Prasad and Jagannath Prasad. It is claimed that Dargari was issueless, Dwarika Prasad had one son Sooraj Lal and the petitioners are sons of Jagannath Prasad.

4. It is claimed that a suit as filed for declaration by the legal heirs of Dwarika Prasad namely Sooraj Lal in which the petitioners had filed an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, however, without deciding the same, the suit came to be decreed on the basis of compromise inter se in between the parties who are party to the suit vide judgment dated 09.09.2020. The petitioners challenged the said order which too has been dismissed.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that non impleadment of the petitioners and deciding the suit ex-parte without impleading them has adversely affected their rights. A copy of the suit in which the order dated 09.09.2020 came to be filed is on record wherein the plaintiff to the said suit namely Surya Lal claimed himself to the Bhumindhar of the property bearing Gata No.2553 to the extent of 1/2, old Gata No.6249. It was claimed that the respondent nos.8 & 9 were trying to interfere without having any interest. Subsequently, the said suit was compromised.

6. From the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment it could not be demonstrated that the land on which the petitioners are claiming their right by virtue of succession was subject matter of the suit. Prima-facie, the petitioners by virtue of their claim were not even affected by the compromise decree, as such, no interference is called for. However, in case the petitioners claim their rights by virtue of succession or otherwise, it would be open to the petitioners to prefer a fresh suit for declaration in accordance with law.

7. Present petition is accordingly disposed off.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.) May 18, 2026 nishant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court