# Abhinav Singh v. Board Of Revenue U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 292
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 3195 of 2025
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhinav-singh-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-ors-52837
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned in the present petition, therefore
the present petition is dismissed. However,
the liberty is granted tot he petitioner to
move an appropriate application before the
Consolidation Officer for production of the
original Will on record. Liberty is further
granted that after the respondents have
adduced their evidence to prove the Will
the petitioner at liberty to move appropriate
application for obtaining expert opinion on
the signatures thereon in accordance with
law..

13.
Subject
to
the
aforesaid
observations, the petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ B No. 3195 of 2025

Abhinav Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a person who is neither the lessor nor
the lessee, and is merely a co-applicant for
allotment of a Retail Outlet of Indian Oil, has
locus standi to seek cancellation of a private
lease deed executed under Section 94 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by invoking Sections
104 & 105 of the Code read with Rule 103 of
the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India, Art. 226 - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, Ss. 94, 95, 104, 105 & 144 - U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016, Rr. 103 & 186 -
Private lease by bhumidhar - Locus standi -
Who can seek cancellation of private lease -
Exclusion of applicability of Ss. 104 & 105 to
leases under S. 94 by virtue of S. 105(e) -
Scope of proceedings under R. 103 - Distinction
between private lease and State lease - Person
aggrieved - Challenge by rival applicant for
Retail Outlet Dealership.
HELD:
Petitioner was a co-applicant for allotment of
Retail Outlet Dealership. Respondent no. 6
produced a lease deed dated 15.02.2023 and on
the basis of the said lease deed, Letter of Intent
was issued in favour of respondent no. 6 for
allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership. Petitioner
challenged
the
said
lease
deed
dated
15.02.2023 alleging that the lease was in
violation of Section 94 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, and, therefore, void in terms of
Section 104 of the Code read with Rule 103 of
the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Objections
were filed, inter alia, raising the plea that the
petitioner had no locus standi to challenge a
private lease executed under Section 94 of the
Code. Held : Section 94 of Code, 2006
pertains to execution of private lease and
further Section 95 of Code, 2006 provides
the
provisions
of
cancellation
or
termination in case of dispute. Section
95(6)(e) of Code, 2006 clearly provides
that it can only be terminated by lesser or
lessee by a Bhumidhar on a mutually
agreed terms. So far as Sections 104 &
105 of Code, 2006 are concerned; Section
104 provides transfer in contravention of
this Code to be void and further Section
105 of Code, 2006 provides consequences
of transfer by bhumidhar in contravention
of this Code. Rule 103 of Rules, 2016
provides procedure to follow in case any
application is filed under Sections 104 or
105 of Code, 2006. Section 105(e) clearly
provides that provisions of this section
shall not apply to any lease made under
Section 94 of Code, 2006. Section 105(e)
clarify that provision of Section 105 of
Code, 2006 shall not be applicable to a
lease executed under Section 94 of Code,
2006 and in light of that, provision so
given in Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 would
also not be applicable. Ratio of Section 144
of Code, 2006 is also applicable for filing suit
for cancellation of lease deed. In absence of
claiming to be Bhumidhar or asami or any right
over the land in question, no suit for
cancellation of lease deed may be filed. Only
12 All. Abhinav Singh Vs. Board Of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
293
person having locus i.e. either lessor or lessee in
private lease deed may proceed to cancel or
terminate the lease deed. Petitioner was only
co-applicant for allotment of Retail Outlet of
Indian Oil and has nothing to do with private
lease deed i.e. neither he was lessor nor lessee,
therefore, he cannot challenge the private lease
deed. No infirmity or illegality in the impugned
orders and the writ petition was dismissed.
(Paras 9 to 17) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006;
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

List of Keyword
Private lease; Section 94 U.P. Revenue Code;
Locus standi; Person aggrieved; Sections 104 &
105 U.P.
Revenue
Code;
Section
105(e)
exclusion; Rule 103 U.P. Revenue Code Rules;
Declaratory suit; Section 144 U.P. Revenue
Code; Retail Outlet Dealership; Cancellation of
lease.

CASE ARISING FROM
Challenge to the orders dated 28.05.2025
passed
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
rejecting the petitioner's application for
cancellation of a private lease deed
executed under Section 94 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, and the revisional
order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the
Board of Revenue, U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Amit Kumar Rai
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Shyam Surat
Shukla; Abhinav Singh
Amicus Curiae: Samir Sharma, Sr. Adv.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Rai, learned
counsel for petitioner, learned standing
counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Sri
Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for
respondent no. 6 and Mr. Samir Sharma,
learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae
appointed by this Court vide order dated
26.08.2025.

2. Present petition has been filed
seeking following relief:-

"(I) Issue, a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned revisional order dt.
10.07.25 passed by respondent no. 1 and
impugned order dt. 28.05.25 passed by
respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 1 & 2 to
this writ petition respectively).

(II) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no. 4 to cancel the lease
deed dt. 15.02.23 as per provisions of
section 104 of the code and Rule 103 of the
U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016."

3. Brief facts of the case are that an
advertisement was issued on 28.06.2023 for
allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of
Indian
Oil
Corporation.
Along
with
petitioner, respondent no. 6 was also one of
the applicant. In terms of advertisement,
respondent no. 6 has produced required
lease deed of land executed by respondent
no. 5 for 29 years and 11 months. Based
upon that, Letter of Intent was issued in
favour of respondent no. 6. At this stage,
petitioner has challenged the lease deed
before the Sub Divisional Officer on the
ground that lease deed so executed is in
violation of Section 94 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
'Code, 2006'), therefore, it is void in terms
of Section 104 of Code, 2006 read with
Rules 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules,
2016'). Against the said application,
objection was filed and in objection apart
from other grounds, it is firmly stated that
petitioner is having no locus to challenge
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the lease deed executed under Section 94 of
Code, 2006.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that from the perusal of Section
94 of Code, 2006, it is apparently clear that
lease deed in Section 94 of Code, 2006 can
only be executed for agriculture or for
setting up Solar Plant, whereas in the
present
case,
it
is
executed
for
establishment of Retail Outlet of Indian
Oil, therefore, the said lease deed may be
declared void. He next submitted that
instead of declaring the lease deed void,
Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the
application of petitioner only on the ground
that applicant is having no locus to
challenge the same as he is neither owner
nor co-sharer. He firmly submitted that in
terms of Section 94 of Code, 2006 read
with Rule, 103 of Rules, 2016, there is no
need to become a co-sharer or owner and
only information is sufficient to declare the
lease deed void. He also submitted that in
terms of Rule 186 of Rules, 2016, provisions
of Civil Procedure Code would not be
applicable in present case, therefore, under
such facts orders impugned are bad and liable
to be set aside. He also pointed out that
averment so made in lease deed is false and
fabricated as the facts are entirely different. In
support of that, he has also placed reliance
upon Khasra, Khatauni and report of
Lekhpal, where it is stated that two rooms are
present but on the spot, no rooms are in
existence on the land in dispute, therefore,
lease deed is based upon incorrect facts.
Petitioner has challenged the order by filing
Revision No. 2692 of 2025, which was
dismissed at the admission stage vide order
dated 10.07.2025 affirming the order of Sub
Divisional Officer dated 28.05.2025.

5. Per contra, Sri Shukla, learned
counsel for respondent no. 6 submitted that
Section 94 of Code, 2006 pertains to
execution of private lease and further
Section 95 of Code, 2006 provides the
provisions of cancellation or termination in
case of dispute. He firmly submitted that
Section 95(6)(e) of Code, 2006 clearly
provides that it can only be terminated by
lesser or lessee by a Bhumidhar on a
mutually agreed terms. He also pointed out
that so far as sections 104 & 105 of Code,
2006 are concerned; Section 104 provides
transfer in contravention of this Code to be
void and further Section 105 of Code, 2006
provides consequences of transfer by
bhumidhar in contravention of this Code.
He also pointed out Rule 103 of Rules,
2016 provides procedure to follow in case
any application is filed under Sections 104
or 105 of Code, 2006. He next submitted
that Section 105(e) clearly provides that
provisions of this section shall not apply to
any lease made under Section 94 of Code,
2006. He also submitted that after reading
Sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006 read
with Rule 103 of Rules, 2016, it is
apparently clear that this would be
applicable for a lease of State land and not
for a lease executed by a private person,
therefore, Section 105(e) is inserted later on
to clarify this fact that provision of Section
105 of Code, 2006 shall not be applicable
to a lease executed under Section 94 of
Code, 2006 and in light of that, provision
so given in Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 would
also not be applicable.

6. He further submitted that Section
144 of Code, 2006 is having provision to
file declaratory suits which clearly says that
any person claiming to be Bhumidhar or
asami of any holdings exclusively or jointly
with any other person may file suit for
declaration of his right in such holding or
part. He further submitted that ratio of
Section 144 of Code, 2006 shall also be
12 All. Abhinav Singh Vs. Board Of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
295
applicable for filing suit for cancellation of
lease deed. In absence of claiming to
Bhumidhar or asami or any right over the
land in question, no suit for cancellation of
lease deed may be filed.

7. In light of said facts, he firmly
submitted that only person having locus i.e.
either lessor or lessee in private lease deed
may proceed to cancel or terminate the
lease
deed
and
in
present
case,
undisputedly,
petitioner
is
only
coapplicant for allotment of retail outlet of
Indian Oil and has nothing to do with
private lease deed i.e. neither he is lessor
nor lessee, therefore, he cannot challenge
the private lease deed, therefore, impugned
orders have rightly been passed.

8.
I
have
considered
rivals
submissions advanced by learned counsels
for parties and perused the records.

9. Undisputed fact of the case is that
petitioner is having no concern with the
land in dispute, neither he is owner nor cosharer and his interest is involved only for
allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil
after submission of application form.
Therefore, issue is as to whether petitioner
is having any locus to challenge the private
lease executed in terms of Section 94 of
Code, 2006 or not. Argument so advanced
before
the
Court
is
based
upon
interpretation of Sections 94, 104, 105 &
144 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of Rules,
2016. For ready reference, Sections 94, 104
& 105 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of
Rules, 2016 are being quoted below:-

"Code, 2006

94.
Private
lease
by
a
Bhumidhar.- (1) A Bhumidhar may lease
out his holding or any part thereof to any
person, firm, company, partnership firm,
limited liability partnership firm, trust,
society or any other legal entity for
agriculture or for setting up a solar energy
plant. Such lease shall be known as the
private lease by a bhumidhar.

(2) Private lease by a Bhumidhar
means a contract based on an agreement,
with mutually agreed terms and conditions,
between Lessor, who may be a Bhumidhar
and the Lessee who wishes to undertake
agricultural activities or set up a solar
energy plant, by which the Lessor grants
permission to the Lessee to use the land or
holding or any part thereof for agricultural
purposes or for establishment of solar
energy plant, against a consideration in
cash or kind or a share of produce, payable
to the Lessor as per the lease agreement.

(3) Period of private lease by a
bhumidhar- maximum period of the
private lease by a Bhumidhar shall not
exceed fifteen years at a time:

Provided that, after the expiration
of the first lease period, the duration of
lease period may be further extended by
mutual consent of the Lessor and the
Lessee: Provided further that for purpose of
establishing a solar energy plant, the
maximum period may be upto thirty years.

(4) Conditions of the private
Lease by a bhumidhar- The terms and
conditions of the private lease by a
bhumidhar shall be as mutually agreed
between the Lessor and Lessee. The
general conditions of the lease shall be in
the manner as may be prescribed.

95.
Lease-
how
made,
its
termination and any dispute arising
thereto. -Private lease by a bhumidhar may
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be oral or in writing or Registered.-(1)
Private Lease by a bhumidhar for a single
crop or for period upto one year may be
either oral or in writing. Lease agreement
for period exceeding one year shall be
made by a registered instrument only.

(2) Private Lease by a bhumidhar
to be recorded in remarks column of
Record of Rights - In case of written or
registered lease agreement, a copy of the
agreement or deed shall be made available
to Revenue Inspector concerned, who shall
pass order for recording the details of the
private lease by a bhumidhar lease
agreement (names and other details of
Lessor and Lessee; date of agreement;
period of lease; proposed use of land; and
annual lease rent) in the Remarks column
of Record of Rights (khatauni).

(3) Private Lease by a bhumidhar
shall not create any type of Tenancy Right-
An agreement of private lease by a
Bhumidhar either registered under the
Registration Act 1908 or countersigned by
a Revenue Officer or Gram Pradhan or
notarized by a Notary or oral, shall not
create or confer any rights or interest in
favour of the Lessee over the leased land,
including protected tenancy or occupancy
right or any other right against eviction or
lease
termination,
other
than
those
contained in this Act or Rules, the lease
agreement shall not be used by the Lessee
to establish and permanent right over the
leased land in any Court of Law.

(4) Resumption of Land- After
expiration of the private lease by a
bhumidhar period of or termination of such
private lease, the instrument of private
lease by a bhumidhar shall be a nullify and
if the period of such private lease is not
extended,
the
leased
land
shall
automatically revert to the Lessor and the
Lessee shall hand over peaceful possession
of the land, free from all encumbrances, to
the Lessor and shall cease to have any
right, title or interest in the land so leased
out.
Explanation-
Regardless
of
any
dispute, arising out of private lease made
under Section 94, pending before any Court
of Law, the Lessor shall be entitled to get
peaceful possession of the leased land after
the expiration of the private lease period
and the Lessee shall have no right to retain
possession over the leased land.

(5) Effect of Private Lease by a
bhumidhar - The Provisions contained in
the Code regarding private lease by a
bhumidhar shall not have retrospective
effect.

(6) Termination of the private
lease by a bhumidhar - (a) Unless extended
by mutual consent between the Lessor and
Lessee, the private lease agreement would
terminate on expiry of the private lease
period mentioned in the agreement.

(b) In case of non-payment of
consideration amount or annual lease rent
by the Lessee by the due date, or if any of
the terms and conditions of the private
lease are violated by him, the private lease
by a bhumidhar agreement may be
terminated by the Lessor, prior to-expiry of
the lease period, after giving due notice to
the Lessee in writing.

(c) In case the private lease
agreement is proposed to be terminated
prematurely by the Lessor, then the Lessee
shall be entitled to remove such structures,
machinery etc. that were created or
installed by the Lessee on the leased land.
The Lessee would also be entitled to
recover such damages and compensation
12 All. Abhinav Singh Vs. Board Of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
297
from the Lessor, as agreed upon and laid
down in the private lease agreement.

(d) In case the Lessee wishes to
terminate the lease agreement prematurely
or surrenders the land during the private
lease by a bhumidhar period, then he shall
have to give at least six months' notice to
the Lessor and shall also be liable to pay
the annual rent for the remaining part of the
year to the Lessor, in addition to such other
compensation, as agreed upon and laid
down in the private lease by a bhumidhar
agreement or as prescribed.

(e) In case after expiration of the
private lease by a bhumidhar period or
termination of the lease agreement, the
Lessee
fails
to
handover
peaceful
possession of the leased land to the Lessor,
the Lessee shall be treated as unauthorised
occupant and shall be liable to be ejected
from the leased land. The Lessee shall also
be liable to pay such penal rent or damages
to the Lessor for the period of unauthorised
occupation, as provided in the private lease
by a bhumidhar agreement, in addition to
the cost of such ejection.

(f) The Lessor and Lessee may
terminate the private, lease by a bhumidhar
on mutually agreed terms at any time.

(7) Disputes arising out of the
private lease by a bhumidhar-

(a) In an event of a dispute
arising out of the private lease agreement
by a bhumidhar, or any terms and
conditions thereof; the Lessee and the
Lessor shall make all efforts to amicably
resolve and settle the dispute amongst
themselves or if mutually agreed, by using
mediation by a third party arbitrator or
Gram Panchayat or Village Revenue
Committee.

(b) If the dispute is not settled
through the mechanism mentioned in
Clause (a) either party may file a petition
before the Sub-Divisional Officer.

(c) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall adjudicate the dispute using the
summary procedure within a period of
thirty days of its institution.

(d) An appeal against the order,
other than an interim order, passed by a
Sub-Divisional Officer, shall lie before the
Commissioner.
The
decision
of
Commissioner shall subject to the provision
of section 210, be final."

104. Transfer in contravention
of this Code to be void.- Every Lease or
transfer of interest in any holding or part
thereof made by a bhumidhar or any asami
in contravention of the provisions of this
Code shall be void.

105. Consequences of transfer
by bhumidhar in contravention of the
Code.- (1) Where transfer of interest in any
holding or part made by a bhumidhar is
void under section 104, the following
consequences shall, with effect from the
date of such transfer, ensue, namely:-

(a) the subject matter of such
transfer shall vest in the State Government
free from all encumbrances;

(b) the trees, crops, wells and
other improvements, existing on such
holding or part shall vest in the State
Government
free
from
all
encumbrances;
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) the interests of the transferor
and the transferee in the properties
specified in clauses (a) and (b) shall stand
extinguished;

(d) the extinction of interest of
the transferor under clause (c) shall operate
to extinguish the interest of any asami
holding under him.

(e) the provisions of this section
shall not apply to any lease made under
section 94.

(2) Where any land or other
property
has
vested
in
the
State
Government under sub section (1), it shall
be lawful for the Collector to take over
possession of such land and other property,
and to direct that any person occupying
such land or property be evicted there from,
and for that purpose, the Collector may use
or cause to be used such force as may be
necessary and the provisions of section 59
mutatis mutandis shall apply to such
property.

144.
Declaratory
suits
by
tenure holders. - (1) Any person
claiming to be a bhumidhar or asami of
any holding or part thereof, whether
exclusively or jointly with any other
person, may sue for a declaration of his
rights in such holding or part.

(2) In every suit under subsection (1) instituted by or on behalf of:-

(a) a bhumidhar, the State and the
Gram Panchayat shall be necessary parties;

(b) an asami, the land-holder shall
be a necessary party

Rule, 2016

103. Transfer in contravention
of the provisions of the Code (Section
105).-(1) If a bhumidhar or an asami has
transferred his interest in any holding or
part thereof which is void under section
104, the Lekhpal shall promptly submit a
report
to
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
containing particulars specified in rule
97(1).

(2) On receipt of the report of the
Lekhpal under sub- rule (1), or on
information received otherwise, the Sub-
Divisional Officer shall call upon the
parties to the transfer to show cause, why
action under section 104 read with section
105 should not be taken in respect of the
land in question.

(3) After hearing the parties and
making
such
inquiries
as
may
be
considered
necessary,
if
the
Sub-
Divisional Officer is satisfied that the
transfer in question is void under section
104, he shall declare that:

(a) the subject matter of such
transfer shall vest in the State Government;

(b) the trees, crops, well and other
improvements existing on the holding or
part shall vest in the State Government free
from all encumbrances; and

(c) the interests of the transferor
as well as of the transferee stood
extinguished, from the date of such
transfer.

(4) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall direct that the revenue records should
be corrected accordingly and where the
transfer in contravention of the provisions
of the Code relates to a part of the holding,
he shall also fix land revenue in respect of
12 All. Abhinav Singh Vs. Board Of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
299
the part left with the transferor in
accordance with Chapter XI of these rules.

(5) Every order of the SubDivisional Officer under this rule shall be
endorsed to the Samiti for necessary action.

(6) Where any property referred
to in section 105 has vested in the State
Government, the Collector may evict any
person in unauthorised occupation of such
property and deliver possession thereof to
the Gram Panchayat concerned."

10. From the perusal of Section 94 of
Code, 2006, it is apparently clear that
private lease deed can only be cancelled in
terms of Section 95(6)(f) of Code, 2006. So
far as Sections 104 & 105 of Code, 2006
and Rule 103 of Rules, 2016 are concerned,
once Section 105(e) has been inserted
excluding the applicability of the same
upon the lease executed under Section 94
of Code, 2006, provisions of Sections 104
& 105 of Code, 2006 read with Rule 103 of
Rules, 2016 would not be applicable. Again
coming to the interpretation of Sections
104 & 105 of Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of
Rules, 2016, no doubt on the point that
lease may be executed either by private
person or by State. In case it has been
executed by State Government, every one
is having right to inform the concerned
authority if it is in violation of law, but
once it is not the case, only person
aggrieved is having right to challenge the
private lease deed as provided in Section 95
of Code, 2006. Petitioner is deriving his
locus
from
the
cancellation
of
his
application submitted for allotment of
Retail Outlet of Indian Oil. In case
supposing it that the suit is allowed, the
consequences would be that the land would
be again vested with the original owner and
petitioner would not be beneficiary in any
way.

11. Therefore, petitioner cannot said to
be person aggrieved and accordingly, he
would have no locus standi to challenge the
private lease deed executed under Section
94 of Code, 2006.

12. I have also perused Section 144 of
Code, 2006. From perusal of same, it is
absolutely clear that for declaratory suit,
any person claiming to be Bhumidhar or
asami either exclusively or jointly with any
other person may file suit for declaration of
his rights. In spirit, this section would also be
applicable for filing suit for cancellation of
any instrument executed under the provisions
of Code, 2006. The intention of legislation is
again very much clear that only person who
is having any right over the land may file suit
either for cancellation or for declaration of
rights. Once the person is having no right
over the land or property in dispute, neither
he can file suit for cancellation nor for
declaration of his rights.

13. Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel as amicus curiae appointed by this
Court vide order dated 26.08.2025 has
assisted the Court by vide interpretation of
Sections 104, 105 & 144 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and Rule 103 of U.P. Revenue
Code Rules, 2016. This Court express its
gratitude for his valuable assistance.

14. So far as cancellation of allotment
of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil is concerned,
petitioner is not the remedy less and for
redressal
of
his
grievance,
he
may
challenge the allotment of Retail Outlet of
Indian Oil even taking the ground of
alleged illegal lease deed in contravention
of Section 94 of Code, 2006.
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. For cancellation of lease deed
executed under Section 94 of Code, 2006,
petitioner has to show his locus first which
is totally missing in present case in light of
observations
made
here-in
above.
Therefore, Sub Divisional Officer has
rightly
rejected
the
application
of
petitioner, which was also affirmed by the
Revisional Court.

16. Once, the Court has held that
petitioner is having no locus to challenge the
private lease deed executed under Section 94
of Code, 2006, provisions of Rule 186 of
Rules, 2016 would not come in the rescue of
petitioner as it can only be seen once the
petitioner is having locus to challenge the
private lease deed in question.

17. Therefore, I have found no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned
orders dated 10.07.2025 and 28.05.2025.

18. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 11593 of 2025

Ashok Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Rahul Gandhi & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a person whose conviction has been
stayed by a higher court continues to suffer
disqualification
under
Article
102
of
the
Constitution of India read with Section 8(3) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 102 - Representation
of the People Act, 1951 - S. 8(3) - Writ petition
under Art. 226 seeking writ of quo warranto
against a sitting Member of Parliament -
Conviction under Section 499 IPC and sentence
of two years - Stay of conviction granted by the
Supreme Court pending appeal - Contention
that
disqualification
under
Section
8(3)
continues notwithstanding stay of conviction -
Distinction between stay of execution of
sentence and stay of conviction - Effect of stay
of conviction on statutory disqualification -
Maintainability of writ of quo warranto.

HELD:
Once an order of conviction is stayed, the
bar
under
Section
8(3)
of
the
Representation of the People Act would
not apply. A stay of execution of sentence
is not synonymous to stay of conviction; in
the former case the bar under Section 8(3)
would apply, but in the latter case, since
the conviction has been stayed, the bar
would not apply. The moment a higher
court stays a conviction, the anathema of
conviction goes out of the window and the
person against whom such conviction is
stayed, though not absolved, cannot be
stated to be a convicted person. It is only
when the appeal is decided that it could
be ascertained whether he would be a
convicted person or an acquitted person.
Disqualification under sub-sections (1),
(2)
or
(3)
of
Section
8
of
the
Representation of the People Act will not
operate from the date of the order of stay
of conviction passed by the appellate
court or the High Court. The writ petition
was accordingly dismissed.
[Paras 13, 16, 17, 18 & 19] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653;
Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali,
(2007) 1 SCC 673;
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC
231.