# Anupam Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 858
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 10995 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anupam-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52766
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Jainendra Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
The main issue was whether a respondent bank
is legally justified in unilaterally reducing the
rate of interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts after
they have been issued and the contract has
been formed.

Headnote

## Text

858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Committee of Qabristan was not a party
and therefore, such a party cannot be
impleaded for the first time in the writ
petition and submits that with regard to the
proposed petitioner no averments have been
made in the writ petition and accordingly
such an application cannot be allowed.

4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court is of the view that there is no averment
adding in the writ petition with regard to the
Committee of Management being the owner
of the disputed land or also that no prayer has
been made with regard to the proposed
petitioner and even otherwise the entire suit
proceedings and the revisional proceedings
were contested by the petitioner in his
individual capacity and therefore, I do not find
any ground or the reason to implead the
Committee as a party in the writ petition.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the
application for impleadment is rejected.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 858
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 10995 of 2025

Anupam Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pawan Shukla, Alok Kr. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the notice issued by the Area Lekhpal
directing illegal occupants of land recorded as
Gaon Sabha (Naveen Parti, Banjar Bhumi) to
remove encroachment suffers from any illegality
or arbitrariness warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

HEADNOTE
U.P.
Revenue
Code,
Section
67-A
-
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ
petition challenging notice issued by Area
Lekhpal, directing illegal occupants of land
recorded as Naveen Parti and Banjar Bhumi
to
remove
encroachment
-
Petitioner
admitted occupation for more than 50 years
- No Revenue Record or document filed to
justify occupation - No application moved by
petitioner under Section 67-A of the U.P.
Revenue Code - Revenue Authorities under
mandate to protect Gaon Sabha land - No
illegality or arbitrariness found - Writ petition
dismissed. (E-5)
HELD:
Petitioner was not a recorded tenure holder
of the land recorded as Gaon Sabha.
Revenue Authorities are under the mandate
to protect the Gaon Sabha land and to take
action to remove the illegal encroachers.
Petitioner could not justify his occupation
on the said land. Action, if any, is to be
taken in accordance with law. No ground for
interference made out. Revenue Authority
shall act against all the persons, in case the
encroachment is found on the disputed
land. (Paras 6-8)

CASE LAW CITED
- Nil -
List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code;
Constitution of India

List of Keyword
Gaon Sabha land - Illegal encroachment
- Area Lekhpal - Notice to vacate -
Section 67-A - U.P. Revenue Code -
Protection of Gaon Sabha land - Article
226 - No interference - Dismissal of writ
petition.

CASE ARISING FROM
Notice dated 29.10.2025 issued by Area
Lekhpal, Tehsil Colonelganj, District Gonda
directing removal of encroachment from Gaon
Sabha land.
11 All. Anupam Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
859
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Pawan Shukla; Alok Kumar
Mishra
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for respondents
no. 1 to 4.

2. In the light of the order proposed to
be passed, notice to private respondent, is
dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner has challenged the notice
dated 29.10.2025 issued by Area Lekhpal,
Tehsil
Colonelganj,
District
Gonda,
wherein he has directed all the persons who
have illegally occupied the land situated at
Gata No. 360/0.0200 hectares ((Nayee
Parti) ) as well as Gata No. 361/0.0770
hectares, which is recorded as Naveen Parti
and Banjar Bhumi, which is also being
used by the villagers for their animals
required for public purposes and all the
illegal occupants have been directed to
remove their encroachment within 05 days,
failing which they would be evicted by use
of force, in accordance with law.

4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that he admits his
occupation on Gata No. 360 for more than
50 years. No Revenue Record or any
document has been filed indicating on what
basis the petitioner is occupying the said
land.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that in light of the
provision of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue
Code, the said occupation can be settled in
favour of the petitioner but it seems that no
application has been submitted by the
petitioner to claim his rights under Section
67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code and no
satisfaction explanation has forth come as
to why the petitioner has not moved the
application
before
the
appropriate
Authority claiming his rights under Section
67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code.

6. On the other hand on perusal of
the notice indicates that the Area
Lekhpal has directed all the illegal
occupants to vacate the said premises
themselves, failing which action shall be
taken in accordance with law. Once it is
clear that the petitioner is not a recorded
tenure holder of the said land, while on
the other hand the land is recorded as
Gaon Sabha, then certainly the Revenue
Authorities, who are under the mandate
to protect the Gaon Sabha land have to
take such an action to remove the illegal
encroachers. Notice itself indicates that
the
authority
would
proceed
in
consonance of law and consequently in
light of the aforesaid notice, I do not
find anything illegal and arbitrary which
may require interference.

7. Considering the fact that the
petitioner could not justify his occupation
on the said land which is recorded as Gaon
Sabha land and secondly action, if any, is
to be taken in accordance with law.
Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, I do
not find any ground for interference. The
petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

8. It is further made clear that the
Revenue Authority shall act against all the
persons,
howsoever,
in
case
the
encroachment is found on the disputed
land
----------
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 11 ILRA 860
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA
CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ - C No.21627 of 2023

Nem Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manish Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Jainendra Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
The main issue was whether a respondent bank
is legally justified in unilaterally reducing the
rate of interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts after
they have been issued and the contract has
been formed.

Headnotes
A.
Civil
matter-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-Indian Contract
Act,1872-Banking
Regulation
Act
1949-Petitioners created several FDRs
between 2011 and 2014 with interest
rate of 10.75% ad 10.25%-After the
merger of Oriental Bank of Commerce
with Punjab National Bank in 2020, the
bank reduced these rates-The bank
argued
that
the
reduction
was
a
"correction" because the retired staff
member
was
not
the
"Principal
Account holder"-The court established
fundamental principle of promissory
estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate
expectation
apply
to
banking
contracts-Once a bank promises a
specific rate of interest via an FDR and
the depositor acts upon it without
misrepresentation, the bank is bound
by that rate-Internal bank circulars or
RBI guidelines concerning "additional"
discretionary benefits cannot be used
as a legal basis to retrospectively
reduce
a
previously
agreed
upon
contractual interest rate.
Held
The court allowed the writ petitions and
direction issued that bank must pay interest at
the originally contracted rates as mentioned on
the FDRs until their maturity. Banks cannot
make depositors suffer for the bank's own
internal errors or oversight in offering a specific
interest rate-Any deduction made in the interim
must be refunded with interest.(Para 12 to 38)
(E-6)

Case law Cited
Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union
of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477 Smt. Sarojni Jain
and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others,
Writ C No. 17211 of 2021 , Smt. Shalini Agarwal
and Another Vs. Union of India and 2 Others
Writ C No. 33494 of 2022.

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Indian Contract
Act,1872, Banking Regulation Act 1949

List of Keywords
FDR
(Fixed
Deposit
Receipt),
Unilateral
reduction,
Promissory
Estoppel,
Legitimate
expectation,

Contractual
obligation,
Retrospective application, RBI Master Directions.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION:Writ - CNo.21627 of 2023
From the judgment and order dated 17.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nem Kumar Jain &Anr Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner:
Manish Kumar Rai

Advs. for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Jainendra Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama
Chaturvedi, J.)