# Neeraj Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1371
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13932 of 2026
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54330
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

4 All. Neeraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
as by the State Government, and all authorities have consistently recorded findings in
favour of the petitioners. In absence of any fresh material or demonstrated fraud, the reliance
placed upon the aforesaid decisions is misconceived and does not justify repeated reopening of
concluded proceedings.

38. Even assuming that respondent no.5 could initially bring the issue to notice, he cannot be
permitted to sustain successive rounds of proceedings in the absence of any fresh material or legal
justification. In the present case, respondent no.5 is only a co-villager and has not demonstrated any direct
legal injury and, therefore, does not fall within the category of an aggrieved person in service jurisprudence.
More importantly, the State Government itself has categorically clarified that no substitution of the
complainant was permitted and no further enquiry was warranted. In such circumstances, the continuation of
proceedings at his instance is wholly unjustified.

39. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated
18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 passed by the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order
dated 27.11.2020 passed by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law,
as they result reopening an issue which has already attained finality. The impugned orders,
therefore, suffer from arbitrariness and are unsustainable in law.

40. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Lucknow as well as the orders dated 18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 passed by the
Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj are hereby quashed.

41. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Prayagraj and the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj in respect of the
caste verification of the petitioners shall stand closed. The findings recorded by the District Level
Committee in its orders dated 03.04.2014 and 20.01.2016 declaring the caste certificates of the
petitioners to be valid shall remain operative.

42. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

43. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ C No. 13932 of 2026

Neeraj Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued against duly appointed public officials (Tehsildar, Kanungo,
Lekhpal, SHO, etc.) for alleged misuse of authority in forcibly delivering possession of private land during
pendency of civil litigation.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 32, 226: - Writ Petition under Article 226 - filed against State
authorities (respondent no. 4 to 8), seeking relief of quo warranto and mandamus for restoration of
possession of ancestral property allegedly handed over by Tehsildar, Kanungo, Lekhpal, and police officials
(respondent no. 4 to 8) to private respondents during pendency of civil suit - Petitioners pleaded that
respondents 4 - 8 misused their office and exercised jurisdiction beyond authority - Scope and limits of writ of
quo warranto - court finds that, (i) writ of quo warranto lies only to test validity of appointment to public
office, not against illegal exercise of power - (ii) respondents hold valid public office and the grievance relates
to alleged misuse of power, which cannot be remedied by quo warranto - held - writ of quo warranto is a
proceedings by which a person is asked to state by what authority he supports his claim to a particular office
and it is not like a writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus - hence, writ petition is wholly misconceived, and is
dismissed - however, it will be open for the petitioner to avail the remedy available under law for redressal of
grievances..
(Para - 10, 11, 12)
WP Dismissed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491
B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Uttar Pradesh Registration of Births and
Deaths Rules, 2002

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ Petition, Quo warranto, Mandamus, Usurpation of office, Illegal exercise of power, Possession, Civil suit
pending, extraordinary remedy, Misconceived petition, dismissed, remedy.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case is arising out from forcible possession of ancestral property (Khasra No. 551, area 1.1450 hectare, Mauja
Viruhuni, District Auraiya) allegedly facilitated by public officials during pendency of civil suit.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Ganesh Mani, Ram Chandra Solanki,
Counsel for Respondent(s): - C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)

1. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"i. A writ order or direction in the nature of Quo-warranto against the respondent 4 to 8
under which capacity, they provide forcefully possession of the land belonging to the petitioner of
Khasra No.551 Area About 1.1450 hectare to the respondent no.9 to 11.

ii. A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and
to take appropriate action against respondent no.4 to 8 for misusing their post for providing
4 All. Neeraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1373
forcefully possession to the respondent no.9 to 11 of the ancestral property of Khasra No.551 area
about 1.1450 hectare situated at Mauja Viruhuni, Pargana Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya.

iii. A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent no.4 to 8 to
provide possession of property of Khasra No.551 area about 1.1450 hectare situated at Mauja
Viruhuni, Pargana Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya to the petitioner with immediate effect from the
respondent no.9 to 11."

2. The petitioners in this petition have asked for a writ of quo warranto against respondent
Nos. 4 to 8, i.e. Avinash Kumar posted as Tehsildar, Tehsil- Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya, Ram
Naresh Gupta posted as Kanungo, Tehsil- Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya, Ankit posted as Area
Lekhpal, Village-Biruhani, Tehsil-Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya, Lalit Tripathi posted as Station
House Officer of Police Station Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya and Ram Putra Yadav, Chawki Atju,
Police Station Ajeetmal, District-Auraiya.

3. Before considering the question involved in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to
consider the law as to writ of quo warranto.

4. Quo warranto is a judicial remedy against an intruder or usurper of an independent
substantive public office or franchise or liberty. The writ of quo warranto is an ancient common
law remedy of prerogative in nature.

5. Quo warranto is a civil action available to determine right to public office, franchise, or
liberty. It is a remedy to test the right of the person to hold an office or franchise or exercise some
right or privilege, the powers of which are derived from the State. Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution of India confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and all High Courts to control
executive action in the matter of making appointment to public offices against its statutory
provisions. They also protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a
right.

6. In case of The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr; AIR
1965 Supreme Court 491, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

 "Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any
person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to
show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding
that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him
from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority
on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices
against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public
office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted
subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of
public office; in some cases, persons, not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them
and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of the executive or with its active help,
and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is properly invoked,
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear
that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the
office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that
necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been
made in accordance with law or not."

7. In case of B.R. Kapoor vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr; 2001 (7) SCC 231, the
Supreme Court held:-

 "Besides the above, many High Courts as well as this Court have taken the view that a
writ of quo warranto lies against a person, who is called upon to establish his legal entitlement to
hold the office in question...... On being called upon to establish valid authority to hold a public
office, if the person fails to do so, a writ of quo warranto shall be directed against such person. It
shall be no defence to say that the appointment was made by the competent authority, who under
the law is not answerable to any Court for anything done in performance of duties of his office. The
question of fulfilling the legal requirements and qualifications necessary to hold a public office
would be considered in the proceedings, independent of the fact as to who made the appointment
and the manner in which appointment was made." (para No. 82 at page No. 317 of the judgment).

8. Quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy which law does not offer with liberal hand. It
must be exercised sparingly and with utmost care, caution, and circumspection. A writ of quo
warranto is not a writ of course. It is at the discretion of the Court to grant or to refuse the relief
considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Coming to the facts of the present case, the relief of quo warranto has been claimed by
the petitioners against respondent Nos. 4 to 8 on the ground that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 without any
authority of law and during pendency of civil suit put respondent Nos. 9 to 11 in possession of the
property in question on 09.01.2026. It has also been stated in the writ petition that respondent Nos.
4 to 8 committed gross illegality in putting respondent Nos. 9 to 11 in possession over the ancestral
property of the petitioners during pendency of the original suit. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have
overlooked the legal provision as well as neglected the pendency of litigation. It has also been
stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have exercised jurisdiction beyond their power and are liable to
be punished and prayed that in view of these facts, the court may graciously be pleased to issue a
writ of quo warranto against respondent Nos. 4 to 8, as to under which capacity, they provided
forcible possession of the land belonging to the petitioners to respondent Nos. 9 to 11. Averments
noted above are made in paragraph Nos. 14, 15, 16, 19, and 22 of the writ petition.

10. In my opinion, the prayer made in the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The writ of
"quo warranto" is not a substitute for mandamus or injunction nor for an appeal or writ of error, and
is not to be used to prevent an improper exercise of power lawfully possessed, and its purpose is
solely to prevent an officer or corporation or persons purporting to act as such from usurping a
power which they do not have. A writ of quo warranto is a proceeding by which a person is asked
to state by what authority he supports his claim to a particular office. It is not like a writ of
certiorari or writ of mandamus.
4 All. Vimal Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1375
11. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners are
aggrieved by the illegal action of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for illegal exercise of power. Petitioners
have remedy other than writ of quo warranto as the scope of writ of quo warranto is entirely
different. The illegal action of the respondents can be challenged in appropriate proceedings but not
in a writ of quo warranto.

12. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that the writ petition is wholly
misconceived and is dismissed.

13. However, it will be open for the petitioners to avail the remedy available for redressal
of their grievances, and dismissal of this petition will not come in their way, in case, any
proceedings are initiated by the petitioners.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1375
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 14707 of 2025

Vimal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
whether statutory birth certificate can be doubted and substituted by medical opinion.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 -
section - 12, 17 - Uttar Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002 - Rule - 8(3): -
Writ Petition under Article 226 - filed seeking mandamus for admission in Class VI at Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya - Petitioner relied on statutory birth certificate showing date of birth - falling within eligibility criteria
- respondents denied admission, based on CMO's ossification test opining i.e. age as 16 years - whether
statutory birth certificate can be doubted and substituted by medical opinion - Petitioner pleaded validity of
certificate under Registration of Births and Deaths Act; respondents objected citing medical report - Court
finds that, ossification test is advisory with ±2 years variance, statutory certificate carries presumption of
validity unless cancelled or proved forged - authorities cannot discard statutory documents on whims - denial
violates Right to Education Act - held, petitioner entitled to admission - respondent no. 4 directed to admit
petitioner in Class VI for session 2026-27 - respondent no. 2 is directed to circulate instructions to all
Navodaya Vidyalayas to rely on statutory documents first, and medical opinion only in absence thereof - writ
petition disposed of with compliance directions.
(Para - 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17)
WP Disposed of. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, J&K (1982) 2 SCC 538
Vishnu Alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283