# Ram Kumar v. Narain & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 703
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1001378 of 2000
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-v-narain-ors-52971
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C S.C., Dharmendra Singh Gaur, K.N.
Shukla, Rahul Mishra, Shiv Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to dispute concerned to the
succession of agricultural land following the
death of an issueless landholder, where the
petitioner claims title through adoption. the
primary issue is whether the appellate and
revisional courts could legally set aside a
mutation order by treating a registered adoption
deed as "suspicious".

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-The
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act,1956-Section 16-Land Revenue Act,
section
34-registered
adoption
deed
carries a statutory presumption of validity
under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions
and maintenance act-Such a deed cannot
be discarded as "suspicious" based on
mere
assumptions
or
minor
witness
contradictions
in
summary
mutation
proceedings-Any challenge to the validity
of
a
registered
adoption
must
be
established
through
independent
proceedings by the party seeking to
disprove it-Writ petition allowed.(Para 15
to 28) (E-6)

Held
The court held that most of the facts narrated
by the witnesses are in resemblance and same
cannot be ignored while coming to conclusion
that the adoption deed is suspicious in nature,
therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.

Case law Cited
Laxmibai (Dead) Through LRs & Anr. Vs
Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Through LRs & Ors
[(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97], Mst Deu &
Ors Vs Laxmi Narayan & Ors [(1998) 9 Supreme
Court Case 701],State of U.P. Vs Board of
Revenue[C.M.W.P. No. 30386 of 1991]-referred
to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, The Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act,1956, Land Revenue Act.

List of Keywords
Registered
adoption
deed,
Presumption,
mutation
proceedings,
burden
of
proof,
succession, reasoned order

Case Arising from
Civil Jurisdiction- WRIT-C No. - 1001378 of
2000

 Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:-
 R.P.Pandey, G.P.Pandey, Rajeev Kumar Tripathi
Advs. for Respondent:-
C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Gaur, K.N Shukla,
Rahul Mishra, Shiv Kumar Mishra

## Text

12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors.
703
The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to
determine the boundary dispute without
issuing notice or affording hearing to the
petitioner, a recorded holder of the
adjoining plot. The resultant demarcation
thereby suffers from a procedural illegality
of a fundamental character. The plea of
natural justice cannot be brushed aside on
the ground that subsequent appellate
remedies exist, for the violation is not
curable by appeal; it vitiates the proceeding
itself.

17. Applying the above principles, it
must
be
held
that
the
demarcation
proceedings culminating in the order dated
02.06.2023 suffered from a foundational
procedural illegality. The petitioner, though
a necessary party under Rule 22, was
denied notice and opportunity of hearing,
thereby offending audi alteram partem and
the mandate of the Rules. Such violation
goes to the root of the jurisdiction exercised
and renders the resultant order legally
vulnerable.

18. Once the petitioner, upon gaining
knowledge, moved a recall application
dated 06.06.2023 specifically alleging
denial of notice, the Sub-Divisional Officer
was
duty
bound,
in
the
light
of
Tarkeshwar (supra), to examine that
grievance as a matter of procedural recall
and to correct the error ex debito justitiae.
The rejection of the recall application on
hyper
technical
grounds,
without
addressing the core plea of violation of
Rule 22 and natural justice, is contrary to
the law declared in Tarkeshwar (supra) and
cannot be sustained.

19. The appellate authority, in turn,
failed to appreciate that the defect was not
a mere irregularity curable in appeal, but a
structural breach of a mandatory procedural
safeguard
that
vitiated
the
entire
proceedings. By affirming the ex parte
demarcation without curing the Rule 22
violation or recognising the maintainability
and scope of procedural recall as declared
in Tarkeshwar (supra), the Commissioner's
order dated 06.11.2025 is equally rendered
unsustainable in law.

20.
The
impugned
orders
are,
therefore, set aside.

21.
The
matter
is
remitted
to
Respondent No. 4 (Sub-Divisional Officer)
to conduct fresh proceedings under Section
24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, after
issuing due notice and opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and all other
interested parties.

22. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall
conclude the proceedings expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order, provided there is no
legal impediment. The parties are directed
to cooperate fully in the said proceedings.

23. The writ petition stands allowed in
the terms indicated above.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 703
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1001378 of 2000

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Narain & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
R.P. Pandey, G.P. Pandey, Rajeev Kumar
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C., Dharmendra Singh Gaur, K.N.
Shukla, Rahul Mishra, Shiv Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to dispute concerned to the
succession of agricultural land following the
death of an issueless landholder, where the
petitioner claims title through adoption. the
primary issue is whether the appellate and
revisional courts could legally set aside a
mutation order by treating a registered adoption
deed as "suspicious".

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-The
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act,1956-Section 16-Land Revenue Act,
section
34-registered
adoption
deed
carries a statutory presumption of validity
under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions
and maintenance act-Such a deed cannot
be discarded as "suspicious" based on
mere
assumptions
or
minor
witness
contradictions
in
summary
mutation
proceedings-Any challenge to the validity
of
a
registered
adoption
must
be
established
through
independent
proceedings by the party seeking to
disprove it-Writ petition allowed.(Para 15
to 28) (E-6)

Held
The court held that most of the facts narrated
by the witnesses are in resemblance and same
cannot be ignored while coming to conclusion
that the adoption deed is suspicious in nature,
therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.

Case law Cited
Laxmibai (Dead) Through LRs & Anr. Vs
Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Through LRs & Ors
[(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97], Mst Deu &
Ors Vs Laxmi Narayan & Ors [(1998) 9 Supreme
Court Case 701],State of U.P. Vs Board of
Revenue[C.M.W.P. No. 30386 of 1991]-referred
to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, The Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act,1956, Land Revenue Act.

List of Keywords
Registered
adoption
deed,
Presumption,
mutation
proceedings,
burden
of
proof,
succession, reasoned order

Case Arising from
Civil Jurisdiction- WRIT-C No. - 1001378 of
2000

 Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:-
 R.P.Pandey, G.P.Pandey, Rajeev Kumar Tripathi
Advs. for Respondent:-
C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Gaur, K.N Shukla,
Rahul Mishra, Shiv Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shiv
Kumar Mishra and Sri Rahul Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
legal
heirs
of
respondent No.1 and Sri Divesh Mishra,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
Nos.4, 5 and 6.

2. By means of the present writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed as under :-

"(i) to issue writ of certiorari
quashing order Annexure No.1 dated
8.12.96 passed by opposite party No. 4
which is perverse order and has been
passed having no primary and secondary
evidence on record.

(ii) to issue writ of Mandamus
directing opposite parties No. 1 to 3 not to
interfere in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner, the land in dispute.
12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors.
705

(iii) to issue of writ of certiorari
quashing Anexure No.2 passed by opp.
party No. 5 which is illegal and to set aside
order Annexures No. 1 and 2 and to
confirm the order Annexure No. 3 passed
by trial Court after examining the primary
and secondary evidence on record.

(iv) ..."

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
agricultural land of gata No. 3/0.2870
Hectare situate in Village Surjana Khurd,
52/0.4700 Hectare
situate in Village
Gharua,
142/1.5500
Hectare,
152/468/0.1090
Hectare,
152/0.2800
Hectare, 156/0.4820 Hectare, 163/0.2100
Hectare situate in Village Sarai Jagna,
Tehsil of all villages Kaiserganj, District
Bahraich was ancestral land of petitioner.
Gayadeen has three sons namely Samay
Deen, Narain, Ram Asrey.

4. Since Ram Asray was issueless and
as such when the petitioner was minor of 4
years old, he was adopted by Ram Asrey
after necessary Hindu rituals and customs
from their natural father and mother Sri
Samay Deen and Smt. Dhanpata and an
adoption deed was duly executed and
registered on 8.2.1982.

5. After death of Sri Ram Asrey son of
Gaya Deen, petitioner succeeded all the
movable
and
immovable
properties
including the share of his adoptive father
Sri Ram Asrey in the agricultural land as
per aforesaid adoption and as such a
mutation application on behalf of petitioner
through his natural father was filed. An
objection against the mutation application
was filed by father of opposite party nos.
1/1 and 1/2 on 15.7.1987.

6. The original adoption deed was
filed on behalf of petitioner and same got
proved
alongwith
possession
of
the
petitioner upon the land in dispute by
examining Smt. Dhanpata, natural mother
and marginal witnesses Ganga Ram son of
Sanehi alongwith Brijlal son of Madho,
Village Pradhan Jagdev Singh son of
Raghuraj Singh and Shiv Sahay (the Priest
who carried out the rituals of adoption) and
thereby case of petitioner for mutation was
proved. On behalf of objector opposite
party
no.
1
(deceased)
got
himself
examined and also examined his witnesses
Jogi son of Parmeshwar and Ayodhva
Prasad son of Ram Asrey.

7. By finding the adoption deed and
possession of the petitioner proved and and
by finding that objector could not be able to
rebut the evidences adduced on behalf of
petitioner and also could not be able to
prove his possession upon the share in the
land left behind by Ram Asrey son of Gaya
Deen, the Naib Tehsildar, Kaiserganj,
District Bahraich passed an order of
mutation in favour of petitioner in respect
of land in dispute as stated aforesaid and
situated
in
3
different
villages
on
18.8.1992.

8.
The
Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Kaiserganj allowed the 3 appeals filed by
opposite party No.1 through a common
judgment and order by ignoring the
findings recorded by the mutation court and
the evidence on record that too by giving
quite perverse finding and thereby the order
of mutation dated 18.08.1992 was set aside
and names of Samay Deen and Narain
being the brothers of deceased Khatedar
Ram Asrey was directed to be recorded in
the revenue records vide order dated
17.9.1993.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that against the order
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed in three appeals, three different
revisions were filed on behalf of petitioner
in the court of Commissioner, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad, who, by completely
ignoring the presumptions attached with the
registered adoption deed in terms of
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act and also by ignoring the
illegality,
irregularity
and
perversity
committed by appellate court, dismissed all
three Revisions by passing a common order
dated 8.12.1999.

10. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that if there was any
grievance against the adoption deed duly
registered, the respondents would have
filed statutory proceeding, challenging the
adoption deed registered and due to non
challenging the adoption deed, the finding
recorded by the appellate court and
revisional court, showing assumption of
doubt, is perverse in nature and the orders
passed are not sustainable in the eyes of
law.

11. Next submission is that no reasons
have been recorded in coming to the
conclusion that adoption deed is suspicious
in nature. He submits that reasons are
heartbeat
of
conclusion
and
without
reasons,
the
order
becomes
lifeless,
therefore, due to non-recording of reasons
in coming to the conclusion that the
adoption deed is suspicious in nature, is
wholly illegal and devoid of merit.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act clearly
provides that whenever any document
registered under any law for the time being
in force is produced before any court
purporting to record an adoption made and
is signed by the person giving and the
person taking the child in adoption, the
court shall presume that the adoption has
been made in compliance with the
provisions of this Act unless and until it is
disproved.

13. In the light of the aforesaid
provision, submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the adoption deed
has never been disproved by any competent
court of law, therefore, suspicion on the
adoption deed is wholly misconceived and
erroneous in nature, therefore, the orders
passed are not sustainable in law and are
liable to be set aside. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance upon the
following judgments :-

(i) Laxmibai (Dead) Through LRs &
another
Vs.
Bhagwantbuva
(Dead)
Through LRs & others [(2013) 4
Supreme Court Cases 97]. Relevant
paragraphs 28 to 33 are being quoted below
:-

"28.
In
S.T
Krishnappa
v.
Shivakumar this Court observed that the
adoption deed" must be read as a whole
and that on reading the same in such a
way, the intention of the parties with
respect
to
whether
the
adoptive
father/mother wanted to make an adoption
according to law and not merely to appoint
an heir, must be clearly established.

29. In L. Debi Prasad v. Tribeni
Devi(SCC p. 681, para 8) this Court held
that the giving and receiving are absolutely
necessary to the validity of an adoption. All
that is required is that the natural father be
asked by the adoptive parent to give his son
in adoption, and that the boy be handed
over
and
taken
for
this
purpose.

30. Furthermore, in Deu v. Laxmi
Narayan, the presumption of registered
documents under Section 16 of the Act was
12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors.
707
discussed. It was held that in view of
Section
16,
wherever
any
document
registered under any law is produced
before any court purporting to record an
adoption made, and the same is signed by
the persons mentioned therein, the court
shall presume that the said adoption has
been
made
in
compliance with
the
provisions of the Act, until and unless such
presumption is disproved. It was further
held, that in view of Section 16 it is open
for a party to attempt to disprove the deed
of adoption by initiating independent
proceedings.

31. Mere technicalities therefore,
cannot defeat the purpose of adoption,
particularly
when
the
respondentdefendants have not made any attempt to
disprove the said document. No reference
was ever made either by them, or by their
witnesses, to this document i.e registered
adoption deed. Undoubtedly. the natural
parents had signed along with 7 witnesses
and not at the place where the executants
could sign. But it is not a case where there
were no witnesses except the executants.
Instead of two witnesses, seven attesting
witnesses put their signatures.

32. In Atluri Brahmanandam v.
Anne Si Bapuji the Court held: (SCC
pp.468-70, paras 10 & 13)

"10. The aforesaid deed of
adoption was produced in evidence and the
same was duly proved in the trial by the
evidence led by PW 1, the respondent. We
have carefully scrutinised the crossexamination of the said witness. In the
entire cross-examination, no challenge was
made by the appellant herein either to the
legality of the said document or to the
validity of the same. Therefore, the said
registered adoption deed went unrebutted
and
unchallenged.
We
have
already
referred to the recitals in the said document
which is a registered document and
according to the recitals therein, the
respondent was legally and validly adopted
by the adoptive father.

13. ... Since the aforesaid custom
and aforesaid adoption was also recorded
in a registered deed of adoption, the Court
has to presume that the adoption has been
made in compliance with the provisions of
the Act, since the respondent has utterly
failed to challenge the said evidence and
also
to
disprove
the
aforesaid
adoption."(emphasis added)

33. The appellate courts could
therefore, not have drawn any adverse
inference against the appellant-plaintiffs on
the basis of a mere technicality, to the
effect that the natural parents of the
adoptive child had acted as witnesses, and
not
as
executors
of
the
document.
Undoubtedly, adoption disturbs the natural
line of succession, owing to which, a very
heavy
burden
is
placed
upon
the
propounder
to
prove
the
adoption.
However, this onus shifts to the person who
challenges the adoption, once a registered
document
recording
the
adoption
is
brought before the court. This aspect must
be considered taking note of various other
attending
circumstances
i.e
evidence
regarding the religious ceremony (giving
and taking of the child), as the same is a
sine
qua
non
for
valid
adoption."

(ii) Mst. Deu & others Vs. Laxmi
Narayan & others [(1998) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 701]. Relevant paragraphs 2
and 3 are being quoted below :-

"2. Once the respondent filed an
application for substitution and produced a
registered deed of adoption, the trial court
should have substituted him in place of Smt
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Phulla
on
being
satisfied
that
the
conditions of Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 had
been complied with. Section 16 of the Act
reads as follows:

"16. Presumption as to registered
documents relating to adoption.--Whenever
any document registered under any law for
the time being in force is produced before
any court purporting to record an adoption
made and is signed by the person giving
and the person taking the child in adoption,
the court shall presume that the adoption
has been made in compliance with the
provisions of this Act unless and until it is
disproved."

3. In view of Section 16 aforesaid
whenever any document registered under
any law for the time being in force is
produced before any court purporting to
record an adoption made and is signed by
the persons mentioned therein, the court
shall presume that the adoption has been
made in compliance with the provisions of
the said Act unless and until it is disproved.
According to us, it was not open to the
defendants of the said suit for partition to
collaterally challenge the said registered
deed of partition. In view of Section 16 of
the aforesaid Act it was open to them to
disprove such deed of adoption but for that
they had to take independent proceeding.
The High Court was fully justified in
directing that the respondent be substituted
in place of Smt Phulla on the basis of the
registered deed of adoption produced
before the court."

14. Per-contra, learned counsel for
legal heirs of respondent No.1 raised
preliminary
objection
in
regard
to
maintainability of writ petition and placed
reliance upon a judgment rendered in the
case of State of U.P. Vs. Board of
Revenue [C.M.W.P. No.30386 of 1991].
Relevant paragraph 7 is being quoted
below :-

"7. A bare perusal of the
impugned order indicates that writ petition
arises out of the mutation proceedings
under Sec. 34 of the Act, and in the said
proceedings right of the parties are not
decided rather mutation proceedings are
fiscal in nature. Consequently, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner if so advised
may seek his or its remedy before
competent court by filing a regular suit or
initiating some other proceedings."

15. After having heard the rival
submission of learned counsel for the
parties, I perused the material on record as
well as the judgments relied upon by the
parties.

16. Against the order passed in three
appeals, three different revisions were filed
on behalf of petitioner in the court of
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad, who, by completely ignoring the
presumptions attached with the registered
adoption deed in terms of Section 16 of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and
also by ignoring the illegality, irregularity
and perversity committed by appellate
court, dismissed all three Revisions by
passing a common order dated 8.12.1999,
therefore, the order suffers from apparent
illegality and is liable to be set aside.

17. If there was any grievance against
the adoption deed duly registered, the
respondents would have filed statutory
proceeding, challenging the adoption deed
registered and due to non challenging the
adoption deed, the finding recorded by the
appellate
court
and
revisional
court,
showing assumption of doubt, is perverse
12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. Narain & Ors.
709
in nature and the orders passed are not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

18. No reasons have been recorded in
coming to the conclusion that adoption
deed is suspicious in nature. Reasons are
the heartbeat of any conclusion and without
reasons,
the
order
becomes
lifeless,
therefore, due to non-recording of reasons
in coming to the conclusion that the
adoption deed is suspicious in nature, is
wholly illegal and devoid of merit.

19. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act clearly provides that
whenever any document registered under
any law for the time being in force is
produced before any court purporting to
record an adoption made and is signed by
the person giving and the person taking the
child in adoption, the court shall presume
that the adoption has been made in
compliance with the provisions of this Act
unless and until it is disproved.

20. The adoption deed must be read as
a whole and that on reading the same in
such a way, the intention of the parties with
respect
to
whether
the
adoptive
father/mother wanted to make an adoption
according to law and not merely to appoint
an heir, must be clearly established. The
giving
and
receiving
are
absolutely
necessary to the validity of an adoption. All
that is required is that the natural father be
asked by the adoptive parent to give his son
in adoption, and that the boy be handed
over and taken for this purpose.

21. In view of Section 16, wherever
any document registered under any law is
produced before any court purporting to
record an adoption made, and the same is
signed by the persons mentioned therein,
the court shall presume that the said
adoption has been made in compliance with
the provisions of the Act, until and unless
such presumption is disproved. In view of
Section 16, it is open for a party to attempt
to disprove the deed of adoption by
initiating independent proceedings. In the
case in hand, no independent proceeding
took place for challenging the adoption
deed and without recording reasons, both
the
courts
below
on
the
basis
of
assumption, have come to the conclusion
that the adoption deed is suspicious in
nature. In view the aforesaid, the impugned
orders are unjustified and non-sustainable
in the eyes of law, thus, the same are liable
to be set aside by this Court.

22. The deed of adoption was
produced in evidence and the same was
duly proved by leading evidence of the
witness. I have carefully scrutinised the
cross-examination of the said witness. In
the entire cross-examination, no challenge
was made by the respondents either to the
legality of the said document or to the
validity of the same, therefore, the said
adoption
deed
went
unrebutted
and
unchallenged.

23. Since the aforesaid adoption was
also recorded in a registered deed of
adoption, the Court has to presume that the
adoption has been made in compliance with
the provisions of the Act, since the
respondent has utterly failed to challenge
the said evidence and also to disprove the
aforesaid adoption. The assumption drawn
by both the courts below that the adoption
deed is suspicious, does not record reasons,
therefore, the order is bad in law and liable
to be set aside.

24.
The
appellate
court
could
therefore, not have drawn any adverse
inference against the petitioner on the basis
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a mere technicality, to the effect that the
natural parents of the adoptive child had
acted as witnesses, and not as executors of
the
document.
Undoubtedly,
adoption
disturbs the natural line of succession,
owing to which, a very heavy burden is
placed upon the propounder to prove the
adoption. However, this onus shifts to the
person who challenges the adoption, once a
registered document recording the adoption
is brought before the court. This aspect
must be considered taking note of various
other attending circumstances i.e evidence
regarding the religious ceremony (giving
and taking of the child), as the same is a
sine qua non for valid adoption.

25. The judgment referred by the
respondent No.1 is in regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition that the
writ petition arises out of a mutation
proceeding under Section 34 of the Act and
in the said proceeding the rights of parties
are not decided rather mutation proceedings
are fiscal in nature.

26. The present writ petition has been
filed challenging the order passed by the
appellate court as well as order passed in
the revision, therefore, it cannot be said that
the order of mutation passed under Section
34 is under challenge, therefore, the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel
for respondent No.1 is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
The impugned orders have been passed in
total disregard of the settled proposition of
law, therefore, the same are liable to be set
aside by this Court. The appellate court as
well as revisional court have passed the
orders based on assumption, without
recording reasons and only on the basis of
contradiction in the statement give by the
witnesses, it cannot be presumed that the
adoption deed is suspicious in nature.

27. Most of the facts narrated by the
witnesses are in resemblance and same
cannot be ignored while coming to the
conclusion that the adoption deed is
suspicious
in
nature,
therefore,
the
impugned orders are wholly unjustified,
unreasoned and are liable to be set aside.

28. In view of the reasons recorded
above,
the
impugned
orders
dated
8.12.1996
(Annexure-1)
and
8.5.2000
(Annexure-2) are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 710
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1004228 of 2006

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
The case involves the cancellation of a land
lease/grant originally allotted to the petitioner's
father in 1959 for agricultural purpose. The
dispute specifically concerns land governed
under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act,1952. The
main issue before the court was whether an
Additional Collector has the legal authority to
cancel a grant when Section 15-A of the
Bhoodan Yagana Act,1952 specifically empowers
the Collector to inquire into and cancel such
grants.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act,1952-Sections
14,15, 15-A- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950-198(4)-Statutory