# Ashish Kumar Agarwal v. I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 687
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23888 of 2024
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari, Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashish-kumar-agarwal-v-i-o-c-ltd-ors-52968
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The matter pertains to the eligibility criteria for
the allotment of retail outlet dealerships and the
legal distinction between preliminary and final
decrees in land partition suits. The main issue
was whether an applicant for Oil marketing
company
dealership
fulfills
land
eligibility
requirements under clause 4(vi)(a) of the
selection brochure if they submit a preliminary
decree of partition instead of a final decree or
the consent of all co-sharers at the time of
application.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226U.P. Revenue Code,2006-Section 116, 117
& U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016-Rule
108, 109-A preliminary decree merely
declares the shares of the parties-A final
decree
is
required
to
separate
the
property by metes and bounds and correct
records of rights-The court held that for
the purpose of contractual eligibility with
an Oil corporation, "ownership" or "firm
offer" must be established via a final
decree or unanimous co-sharer consent
existing on the date of applicationSubsequent legal developments cannot
retroactively
validate
an
ineligible
application-writ petition dismissed.(Para
13 to 21) (E-6)

Held
The court held that a preliminary decree is
insufficient to establish exclusive possession or
title for a specific plot. Since the final decree did
not exist on the application date and consent
from all co-sharers was missing, the lease deed
was deemed invalid under Clause 4(vi)(a) of the
Brochure.

Case law Cited
Rahal Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3
Others, Amarjeet Vs Union of India & 3 Othersreferred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code,2006, U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016

List of Keywords
Retail Outlet Dealership, Indian Oil Corporation,
Land Eligibility, Co-sharer Consent, Preliminary
Decree, Final Decree, Partition Suit, Lease Deed
Validity, Metes and Bounds.

Case Arising From
Civil Jurisdiction-WRIT-C No. - 23888 of 2024

Ashish Kumar Agarwal Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & 2 Others

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner:-
Nitin Sharma
Adv. for Respondent:-
Anand Tiwari

## Text

12 All. Ashish Kumar Agarwal Vs. I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors.
687
which would constitute 'reason to believe'
regarding the evasion of stamp duty on the
part of the petitioner.

52. Taking into consideration the
factual matrix of the case in hand and the
law on the subject as discussed herein
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
04.02.2016
passed
by
the
Collector,
Barabanki in Case No. D20140412001297
and
the
judgment
and
order
dated
24.05.2017
passed
by
the
Deputy
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad in Case No. C2016040000510,
are not sustainable in the eyes of law and
are liable to be set-aside.

53. In view of the fact that the
procedure in passing the impugned orders
has been found violative of the relevant
rules inclding Rule 7(3)(c) of the U.P.
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997,
therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose would be
served in remanding the matter to the
authorities to pass fresh order regarding the
determination of the stamp duty in respect of
the instrument which was executed way back
in the year 2013. The law is well settled that
the value of the land in so far as it relates to
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, can be determined
only with reference to the date on which the
document was executed and that any
subsequent change in the nature or use of the
land which may result in the enhancement of
the market value of the property can not be
taken into account. As such, if any inspection
is carried out in the year 2025 or thereafter,
the same would be of no use under law for
the purpose of determination of the stamp
duty on the date of the execution of the saledeed executed on 24.06.2013.

54. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds. The impugned order dated
04.02.2016
passed
by
the
Collector,
Barabanki in Case No. D20140412001297
and
the
judgment
and
order
dated
24.05.2017
passed
by
the
Deputy
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad in Case No. C2016040000510,
are set-aside. A direction in the nature of
Mandamus is issued to the Collector,
Barabanki (opposite party no.3) to refund
the amount deposited by the petitioner
during the pendency of the present
litigation pursuant to the impugned order,
within one month from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order,
before it. It is hereby provided that if the
amount is not refunded within the aforesaid
period, the petitioner shall be entitled of
simple interest @ 6 per cent per annum
from the date of its deposit till the date of
actual refund.

55. The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 687
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 23888 of 2024

Ashish Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nitin Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anand Tiwari

Issue for Consideration
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The matter pertains to the eligibility criteria for
the allotment of retail outlet dealerships and the
legal distinction between preliminary and final
decrees in land partition suits. The main issue
was whether an applicant for Oil marketing
company
dealership
fulfills
land
eligibility
requirements under clause 4(vi)(a) of the
selection brochure if they submit a preliminary
decree of partition instead of a final decree or
the consent of all co-sharers at the time of
application.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226U.P. Revenue Code,2006-Section 116, 117
& U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016-Rule
108, 109-A preliminary decree merely
declares the shares of the parties-A final
decree
is
required
to
separate
the
property by metes and bounds and correct
records of rights-The court held that for
the purpose of contractual eligibility with
an Oil corporation, "ownership" or "firm
offer" must be established via a final
decree or unanimous co-sharer consent
existing on the date of applicationSubsequent legal developments cannot
retroactively
validate
an
ineligible
application-writ petition dismissed.(Para
13 to 21) (E-6)

Held
The court held that a preliminary decree is
insufficient to establish exclusive possession or
title for a specific plot. Since the final decree did
not exist on the application date and consent
from all co-sharers was missing, the lease deed
was deemed invalid under Clause 4(vi)(a) of the
Brochure.

Case law Cited
Rahal Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3
Others, Amarjeet Vs Union of India & 3 Othersreferred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code,2006, U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016

List of Keywords
Retail Outlet Dealership, Indian Oil Corporation,
Land Eligibility, Co-sharer Consent, Preliminary
Decree, Final Decree, Partition Suit, Lease Deed
Validity, Metes and Bounds.

Case Arising From
Civil Jurisdiction-WRIT-C No. - 23888 of 2024

Ashish Kumar Agarwal Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & 2 Others

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner:-
Nitin Sharma
Adv. for Respondent:-
Anand Tiwari

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

1. Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand
Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

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

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the Order dated 28.06.2024
(Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition),
passed by respondent no 2 & Order dated
15.04.2024 (Annexure No. 2 of the writ
petition) passed by Respondent No. 2,
rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner
for selection of dealership of retail outlet in
pursuance
of
advertisement
dated
28.06.2023.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to accept
the piece of land/plot situated at Village
Mubarakpur Hardas, Tehsil Najibabad,
District Bijnor (duly enumerated in the
lease deed dated 25.07.2023) offered by
the petitioner for establishment of retail
outlet.
12 All. Ashish Kumar Agarwal Vs. I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors.
689

(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to issue letter
of Intent and letter of agreement in favour
of the petitioner, in pursuance of the
provisional
selection
letter
dated
08.12.2023 within the stipulated time
period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court. "

3. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the respondent
no.1-Indian
Oil
Corporation
Limited
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
"Oil
Corporation") has issued an advertisement
dated 28.06.2023 inviting application for
setting up a retail outlet dealership at
location, namely, village Mubarkhpur,
Hardas Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor.
Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioner
submitted an application fulfilling all the
requisite qualifications on 16.10.2023.
After considering the application of the
petitioner, it was rejected on 15.04.2024 on
the ground that alongwith the application,
petitioner has not annexed the lease deed of
all the co-sharers of the land, so offered.
Against the same, petitioner has also
preferred representation, which was also
rejected by the respondent no.2 vide order
dated 28.06.2024 on the same ground.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that the site in question is
situated in the part of land of Bhism Singh
and as such, the petitioner had got the lease
deed executed in its favour by Bhism Singh
only. Thereafter, Bhism Singh has filed
partition suit No. 3786 of 2023 under
Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as Code, 2006) and
a preliminary decree dated 23.09.2023 was
prepared.
He
further
submitted
that
petitioner has submitted the application for
allotment of retail outlet dealership in the
State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.10.2023 along
with preliminary decree dated 23.09.2023,
that decree was confirmed vide order dated
15.02.2024 passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate(Tehsil level) Judicial, Mandal
Moradabad, Najibabad in Case No. 3786 of
2023(Bhism Singh Vs. Hemraj and Others).
Final decree was put in force with effect
from 23.09.2023 and defect has now been
cured prior to date of application ,
therefore, rejection of the petitioner's
application is bad and is not sustainable in
the eye of law.

4. Per contra, Shri Anand Tiwari, learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that
Clause 4(vi) (a) of the Brochure of selection of
retail outlet dealership is very clear, which
provides that on the date of filing of the
application, lease deed of every co-sharer is
required and in the present case, undisputedly
only one co-sharer, namely, Bhism Singh has
executed the lease deed, therefore, the
condition of clause 4(vi)(a) has not been
fulfilled. He has also submitted that based on
preliminary decree no retail outlet can be
granted to the petitioner as this is not the final
decree and also subsequent position of land
may be altered or changed at the time of
preparation
of
final
decree,
therefore,
petitioner has not fulfilled the condition so
required in the Brochure. Hence, the
respondents
have
rightly
rejected
the
application of the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the respondents has relied upon
judgments of this Court given in Writ C
No. 7354 of 2024 (Rahul Singh Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 3
Others), decided on 06.03.2024 and Writ C
No. 11586 of 2024 (Amarjeet Vs. Union
of India And 3 Others), decided on
06.05.2024.

6. We have considered the submission
advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perused the records and the judgments
relied upon.

7. The issue before the Court is as to
whether, in terms of Clause 4(vi)(a) of of
the Brochure for selection, petitioner is
fulfilling the requirement of land or not.

8. For the ready reference, Clause
4(vi) of of the Brochure is being quoted
hereinbelow: "

(vi) Land (Applicable to all
categories): The applicants would be
classified into three groups as mentioned
below based on the land offered or land not
offered by them in the application form: -

Group - 1: Applicants having
suitable piece of land in the advertised
location/area either by way of ownership /
long term lease for a period of minimum 19
years 11 months or as advertised by the
OMC.

Group - 2: Applicants having
Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for
purchase or long- term lease for a period
of minimum 19 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.

Group-3: Applicants who have
not offered land in the application. Only
applicable for locations advertised under
SC/ST category.

Applications under Group - 3
would be processed/advised to offer land
(Annexure - D) only in case no eligible
applicant is found or no applicant get
selected under Group-1& Group-2. In case
land offered by all the applicants under
Group 1 & Group 2 is found not
suitable/not meeting requirements, then
these applicant/s under Group - 1 & Group
- 2 along with applicants under Group - 3
(who did not offer land along with
application) would be advised by the
OMCs to provide suitable land in the
advertised location / stretch, within a
period of 90 days from the date of issuance
of intimation letter to them through SMS/email. In case the applicant fails to provide
suitable land within the prescribed period,
or the land provided is found not meeting
the laid down criteria, the application
would be rejected.

The other conditions with respect
to offering of land are as under: -

(a) The land should be available
with the applicant as on the date of
application and should have minimum
lease of 19 years and 11 months (as
advertised by respective oil company) from
the date or after the date of advertisement
but not later than the date of application. If
the offered land is on Long-term lease and
there are multiple owners, then lease deed
should be executed by all co-owners of the
offered plot. Incase lease deed is not
executed by all co-owners; such lease deed
shall be treated as invalid."

9. From the perusal of the aforesaid
clause, it is apparently clear that if the land,
lease deed of which has been annexed
along with application form is not covered
under the Category of Group-I of Clause
4(vi) of the Brochure, then it is required on
the part of the applicant to submit the
consent of other co-sharers in terms of
Clause 4(vi)a, which undisputedly has not
been filed along with application and the
defence of the petitioner is that, he had
filed preliminary decree dated 23.09.2023,
which was later on confirmed vide order
dated 15.02.2025 w.e.f. 23.09.2023.

10. To adjudicate the controversy, now
coming to the provision of Section 116 of
Code, 2006, under which the partition suit
was filed. Section 116 of the Code, 2006
provides for filing of partition suit and
further, Section 117 of the Code, 2006
12 All. Ashish Kumar Agarwal Vs. I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors.
691
provides for procedure so adopted for the
partition suit. Sections 116 and 117 are
being quoted hereinbelow:

"116 Suit for division of holding-
(1) A bhumidhar may sue for the division of
the holding of which he is a co-sharer. (2)
In every such suit, the Court may also
divide
the
trees,
wells
and
other
improvements existing on such holding but
where such division is not possible, the
trees, wells and other improvements
aforesaid and valuation thereof shall be
divided and adjusted in the manner
prescribed. (3) One suit may be instituted
for the division of more holdings than one
where all the parties to the suit other than
the Gram Panchayat are, jointly interested
in each of the holdings. (4) to every suit
under this section, the Gram Panchayat
concerned shall be made a party."

117 Durty of Court in suits for
division of holding-(1) In every suit for
division of holding under section 116 the
Court of Assistant Collector shall-

(a) follow such procedure as may
be prescribed;

(b) apportion the land revenue
payable in respect of each such division.

(2) A division of holding referred
to in section 116 shall not affect the joint
liability of the tenure-holders thereof in
respect of the land revenue payable before
the date of the final decree."

11. Rule 108 and 109 of U.P. Revenue
Code Rules, 2016(hereinafter, referred to
as, 'Rules, 2016') are also relevant under
which, the procedure is given to decide the
suit filed under Sections 116 and 117 of
Code, 2006. Rules 108 and 109 of Rules,
2016 are being quoted hereinbelow:

"108. Suit for division for several
holdings[Section
116]-Where
the
suit
relates to the division of more than one
holding, the particulars specified in rule
107 shall be mentioned in the plaint in
respect of all such holdings.

109.
Preliminary
and
Final
decrees[Section 117]-(1) If the plaint
referred to in rule 107 or rule 108 is in
order, it shall be registered as a suit and
the defendants shall be called upon to file
their written statements. The suit shall then
be decided according to the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2) Before making a division the
court shall- (a) determine separately the
share of the plaintiff and each of the other
co-tenure holders ;

(b) record which, if any, of the
co-tenure holders wish to remain joint ;
and
(c) make valuation of the holding
(or holdings) in accordance with the circle
rate fixed by the Collector applicable to
each plot in the holding.

(3) If the suit is decreed, the
Court shall pass a preliminary decree
declaring the share of the plaintiff.

(4) After the preparation of
preliminary decree the Sub Divisional
Officer shall get the Kurra prepared
through the Lekhpal.

(5) The Lekhpal shall submit the
Kurra report within a period of one month
from the date of receiving the order in this
regard and at the time of preparation of
Kurra he shall observe the following
principles-

(a) the plot or plots shall be
allotted to each party in proportionate to
his share in the holding;

(b) the portion allotted to each
party shall be as compact as possible;

(c) as far as possible no party
shall be given all the inferior or all the
superior classes of land;

(d) as far as possible existing
fields shall not be split up;
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(e) Plots which are in the
separate possession of a tenure holder
shall, as far as possible, be allotted to such
tenure holder if they are not in access of his
share;

(f) If the plot or any part thereof
is of commercial value or is adjacent to
road, abadi or any other land of
commercial value, the same shall be
allotted
to
each
tenure
holder
proportionately and in the case of second
condition the same shall be allotted
proportionately adjacent to road, abadi or
other land of commercial value; and

(g) If the co-tenure holders are in
separate possession on the basis of mutual
consent or family settlement, the Kurra
shall, as far as possible, be fixed
accordingly.

(6) When the report regarding
Kurra is submitted by the Lekhpal, the
objection shall be invited thereon and
thereafter the appropriate order shall be
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
parties and considering the objection, if
any, filed against the report submitted by
the Lekhpal.

(7) If the report and Kurra is
confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
the final decree shall follow it.

(8) At the stage of the final
decree, the Court shall-

(a) Separate the share of the
plaintiff from that of the defendant by metes
and bounds.

(b) Place on record a map
showing in different colours the properties
given to plaintiff as distinct from those
given to the defendant.

(c) Apportion the land revenue
payable by the parties.

(d) Direct the record of rights
and map to be corrected accordingly. "

(9) If, for adjusting the equities
between
the
parties,
payment
of
compensation regarding trees, wells or
other 73 improvements becomes necessary,
the revenue Court concerned may also pass
necessary orders at the stage of final
decree.

(10) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall make an endeavour to decide the suit
within the period of six months and if the
suit is not decided within such period, the
reason shall be recorded."

12.. From the perusal of the aforesaid
provisions, it is apparently clear that if the
suit is decreed and preliminary decree is
prepared, at the stage of final decree, the
court shall separate the share of plaintiffs
from the defendants by metes and
bounds, place on record a map showing
in different colours the properties given
to plaintiff as distinct from those given to
the defendant, apportion of the land
revenue payable by the parties and direct
the record of rights and map to be
corrected accordingly.

13. Now, coming to the present case.
It is undisputed that at the time of
submission of application i.e. 16.10.2023,
preliminary decree dated 23.9.2023 was
prepared, which was not final in terms of
Sections 116 & 117 of the Code, 2006 read
with Rule 108 & 109 of Rules 2016 and at
the stage of preparation of final decree,
location of the land may be changed.
Preliminary decree was confirmed as final
decree vide order dated 15.2.2024 passed
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate.
Therefore, on the date of filing of
submission of application, petitioner is
having no final document with regard to
land so offered for establishment of retial
outlet.
12 All. Ashish Kumar Agarwal Vs. I.O.C. Ltd. & Ors.
693

14. "Oil Corporation? after granting
the allotment letter invest a huge amount in
installation of retail outlet and in case of
change of location of land after installation,
may suffer huge financial loss, therefore,
the provision has been made to present the
land absolutely undisputed having the
consent of all share holders. Therefore, in
light of such facts, once the final decree is
not prepared in terms of Rule 109 of Rules,
2016, land cannot said to be fulfilling the
norms so required under Clause 4(iv)(a) of
the Brochure.

15. Similar issue came up before this
Court in Rahul Singh(Supra). Relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are being
quoted hereinbelow;

"9. In view of the above, we find
that the Brochure stipulates amongst others
two contingencies (discussed here namely),
one where the land may be owned by a
person other than the applicant or his
family members, second, where the land
may be owned by the applicant alongwith
others or others alongwith his family
members or both. Considering the present
facts land is owned by third parties to the
exclusion of the applicant and his family
members. That situation is dealt with in
terms of Clause 4 (vi) (a).

10.
The
situation were the land may be owned by
the applicant either in his own name or
alongwith his family members and/or other
persons has been dealt with in Clause 4 (vi)
(m) under situations 1, 2 and 3 dealt with
in the tabular chart under the heading
?GROUP 1? appearing in that Clause.

11. Then, without reference to
Clause (a), (m) or any Sub-Clause of
Clause 4 (vi) of the Brochure, Note-3
thereto only provides- whereever consent
letter is required, it may be submitted on
form Appendix III.

12. As noted above, in the present
facts, the land offered in the allotment is
not owned by the petitioner/applicant or
the
petitioner/applicant
alongwith
his
family
members
or
by
the
petitioner/applicant
alongwith
other
owners and his family members. Therefore,
Clause 4 (vi) (m) would not apply to the
present facts.

13. On the contrary, the only
Clause applicable to such facts would be
Clause 4 (vi) (a). That Clause clearly
stipulates
that
the
land offered
for
allotment should be available to the
applicant on the date of submission of his
application against a long term lease
executed
by
"all
co-owners".
The
consequence of non execution of such lease
deed is also provided in the said Clause.
Thus it has been stipulated, in case such
lease deed is not executed by all co-owners,
the same shall be invalid. Once invalid that
ineligibility attaches to the application
submitted by the petitioner on the date of
submission of his application.

14.
For
the
purpose
of
application
of
the
said
Clause
the
requirement remains- execution of lease
deed by all co-owners, therefore, consent
letters cannot fulfil that stipulation. In face
of the consequences of invalidity of the
lease deed having been specified, there
survives no occasion to consider if the
defect in such application could ever been
cured, after its submission.

15. Consequentially, the method
of curing the defect considered under Note3 (noted above) would remain confined to
the cases falling under Clause 4 (vi) (m),
only.

16. For the reasons noted above,
we conclude, the petitioner?s case would
remain covered by Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Brochure. It is admitted that the lease deed
relied by the petitioner was not executed by
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all co-owners before the date of submission
of the application. Therefore, thereis no
error on the part of the respondent in
rejecting the application submitted by the
petitioner. "

16. In this case referred hereinabove,
consent of co-sharers was not available,
therefore, Court has held that
land
documents alongwith application cannot
treated to be fulfilling the norms as
required Clause 4(vi)(a) of of the Brochure
for selection.

17. Almost with the similar facts to
present case, this issue again came up
before the this Court in Amarjeet (Supra)
and the Court has taken the similar view.
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment
are being quoted hereinbelow:

"13. Insofar as the present facts
are concerned, it is not the case of the
petitioner that the plot no. 965 (entire) was
in the exclusive ownership of the Mahendra
Singh. The petitioner admits that there
were co-sharers in that plot along with
Mahendra Singh. At the same time, the
Brochure required lease deed to be
executed by all co-sharers of the plot being
offered for allotment. Also, there can be no
dispute to the fact that the above eligibility
condition was to be met on the date of
application i.e. 25.9.2023. Therefore, the
rights of Mahendra Singh in plot no. 965,
are to be seen on the date of filing of the
application
dated
25.9.2023,
only.
Subsequent developments or change of
circumstances would have no bearing on
the rights being claimed by the petitioner.
In any case, they may not alter the
eligibility requirement that has been
enforced under the Brochure.

14. Tested on that principle, while
the
petitioner
claims
existence
of
a
compromise reached prior to the eligibility
date 25.9.2023 as acknowledged in the order
dated
11.2.2023
passed
by
Assistant
Consolidation Officer, at the same time, it is
the own case of the petitioner that the said
order was erroneous to the extent it failed to
fully recognize the compromise in entirety
and it failed to recognize the partition by
metes and bounds that had taken place
between the parties to that dispute. Therefore,
the petitioner appealed against that order
before Settlement Officer, Consolidation and
was successful in that appeal to the extent the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his
order dated 20.12.2023 clearly provided for
preparation of the 'Kurra' in terms of
settlement/compromise reached between the
parties, both as to the shares as also to the
exact allocation of the apportioned shares.

15. Though the said order dated
20.12.2023 may relate back inter parties (to
the
dispute
before
the
Consolidation
authorities), and no other right may be
claimed by the co-sharers, yet, IOCL was a
stranger to that dispute. It may not have
acted upon it. It could only recognize the
rights of the parties as were seen to exist i.e.
were adjudicated on the date of the
application i.e. 25.9.2023. What transpired
thereafter may not alter the status of
eligibility conditions. The exact allocation of
the apportioned shares not enforced on that
date - by metes and bounds, no benefit may
be drawn against the I.O.C.L., by the
subsequent events arising from the appeal
filed by Mahendra Singh being allowed. To
that extent, Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Brochure is
specific and consequence of its noncompliance is also unequivocally clear. It
was for the petitioner to act accordingly, and
offer non-litigious land, as stipulated, in the
Brochure.

16. To the extent the order of the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated
20.12.2023 did not exist on the date of
12 All. Gangaram Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
eligibility claimed and there was no 'Kurra'
prepared, the partition by metes and
bounds was not visible to I.O.C.L. Merely
because there may not survive any dispute
between Mahendra Singh and his cosharers on the strength of some private
partition held, in absence of public
recognition granted in law, either through
the order of the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation, and/or through appropriate
revenue entries, the IOCL may have
remained within its rights not to recognize
and/or act on such developments as may
have involved alteration of its own position
viz-a-viz the proposed Retail Outlet.

17. In matters of contract, the
Writ Court may leave it open to the
contracting parties to act in the manner
they may deem fit. Insofar as the action of
the IOCL is not seen to be plainly arbitrary
and/or unreasoned, we are not inclined to
offer any interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to reverse the
commercial decision of the IOCL - to not
enter into the contract with the petitioner.

18. In view of that reason arising,
we are not inclined to act on the otherwise
sustainable ground of challenge that the
order
impugned
is
non-speaking.
Intervention if made, on that count would
only result in an academic exercise.

19. In view of the above, writ
petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs."

18. This matter is more identical to the
present dispute in which date of filing of
application is 25.9.2023 whereas an order
was passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer on 11.2.2023, the basis of fulfilling
the land norms. Ultimately, the status of said
land
was
finalized
vide
order
dated
20.12.2023 for preparation of Kurra in terms
of settlement and compromise earlier agreed
between the parties on 11.2.2023, but Court
has held that it was finalized only after date
of application on 25.9.2023, therefore, same
cannot be taken into account for allotment of
retail outlet and accordingly dismissed the
petition.

19.
The
controversy
involved
hereinabove is identical controversy to the
present case, therefore, ratio of law of this
judgment referred hereinabove shall also be
applicable in the present case.

20. Therefore, in light of facts of the
case, provisions of law and judgment of this
Court, Court is of the firm view that in case
of joint ownership of land, consents of all cosharers are required and further to establish
the partition preliminary decree is not
sufficient and a final decree is required along
with application in terms of Sections 116 &
117 of the Code, 2006 read with Rule 108 &
109 of Rules 2016. The Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
and is liable to be dismissed.

21. Writ Petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 695
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 41243 of 2025

Gangaram Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue is whether a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable against orders passed in mutation