# Satya Narayan Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2090
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2967 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-narayan-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52047
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006-Petitioner is a
complainant -on his instance proceedings u/s 67
of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 were initiated
against the Respondent no.5-on report being
called-the proceeding u/s 67 were droppedAppeal-rejected- Writ is maintainable-cannot be
left remedy-less where no other statutory
remedy is provided-entire case of Petitioner is
based upon the report-report was submitted
without proper survey-upon objection by
Respondent-alleged
constructions
existedPetitioner not been able to demonstrate how the
report is bad-no ground to interfere.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
late Naval Kishore in the rituals of
adoption, even that cannot be said that it
was a consent by the wife of late Nawal
Kishore as per the law settled in the case of
the Ghisa Lal (supra).

19. The appellate and revisional
Court for treating the adoption deed proved
had relied upon section 6, 11 and 16 and
other sections of the Act, 1956 but no
plausible and reasonable finding has been
given as far as the objection raised by the
petitioners in pursuance to proviso to
Section 7 of the Act, 1956 i.e. the consent
of the wife of the late Naval Kishore. But
merely on the basis of statement of
Indrajeet Tiwari, the marginal witness
treating the adoption deed valid despite the
finding that there was no consent of the
wife of late Nawal Kishore in writing.

20. In view of the facts,
circumstances
and
discussion
made
hereinabove, it is clear that the adoption
was not in accordance with the proviso to
Section 7 Act, 1956, since there was not
consent of the wife of late Nawal Kishore
for the adoption in writing nor it could so
inferred by merely her presence during the
adoption ceremonies, more particularly,
there is affirmative mindset of her consent,
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ghisa Lal (supra) that such a
presence would be as an spectator in the
assembly of people.

21. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed.

22. The impugned revisional order
dated 25.05.1987 and appellate order dated
07.01.1985 are hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2090
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 2967 of 2024

Satya Narayan Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dinesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Vineet Kumar Singh

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006-Petitioner is a
complainant -on his instance proceedings u/s 67
of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 were initiated
against the Respondent no.5-on report being
called-the proceeding u/s 67 were droppedAppeal-rejected- Writ is maintainable-cannot be
left remedy-less where no other statutory
remedy is provided-entire case of Petitioner is
based upon the report-report was submitted
without proper survey-upon objection by
Respondent-alleged
constructions
existedPetitioner not been able to demonstrate how the
report is bad-no ground to interfere.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rahul Kumar Vs St. of UP & ors. reported in
2023 (9) ADJ 614

2. Ghanshyam Verma & ors. Vs St. of UP & ors.
reported in 2021 (7) ADJ 67

3. Rahul Kumar Vs St. of UP & ors. reported in
2023 d(9) ADJ 614

4. Shambhunath Pandey Vs St. of UP & ors.

5. Writ C No. 29440 of 2021,decided on
10.11.2021
Neutral
Citation
No.
2021:AHC:134861
5 All. Satya Narayan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2091
6. Vivekanand Yadav Vs St. of UP & anr. reported
in 2010 (10) ADJ 1 (FB)

7. Narendra Kumar Vs St. of UP & ors. reported
in 2013 (1) ADJ 228.

8. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs Collector reported in
2012 (4) SCC 407

9. Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2010 (2) AWC 1878 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by
learned counsel for the petitioner is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel representing the State
respondents,
Shri
Bhupendra
Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel representing the
Respondent no. 4 and Shri Vineet Kumar
Singh, learned counsel who has put in
appearance on behalf of the respondent no.
5.

3. The writ petition has been filed
questioning the legality, propriety and
correctness of the order dated 23.11.2023
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Chandauli, in Case No. 674 of 2023 in
Appeal under Section 67 (5) of the UP
Revenue
Code,
2006
whereby
and
whereunder the Appeal preferred by the
petitioner
through
the
Gram
Sabha
concerned
against
the
order
dated
01.07.2023 passed by the Tehsildar,
respondent no. 3 has been rejected and the
order dated 01.07.2023 dropping the
proceedings under Section 67 of the Code,
2006 against the respondent no. 5 has been
upheld.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
complainant
on
whose
instance
proceedings under Section 67 of the UP
Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against
the respondent no.5. On a report being
called on the allegations levelled in the
complaint the proceedings under Section 67
were dropped. The Appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order dropping the
proceedings has been rejected.

5. A preliminary objection has
been raised by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 5
that the writ petition at the instance of the
complainant petitioner is not maintainable
placing reliance upon a decision of a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the Case
of Rahul Kumar vs. State of UP and others
reported in 2023 (9) ADJ 614.

6. The preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the writ petition has been
repelled by the learned counsel for the
petitioner by submitting that the objection
is ill founded in as much as petitioner being
a member of the Gaon Sabha is vested with
the rights to ensure that the Gaon Sabha
land is not encroached upon and places
reliance upon a decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of
Ghanshyam Verma and others vs. State of
UP and others reported in 2021 (7) ADJ
67. It is further contended that the Appeal
of the petitioner under Section 67 (5) of the
UP Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected
and the petitioner cannot be rendered
remedy less and is certainly within his
rights to assail the order passed in the
Appeal in a writ petition where no other
statutory remedy is provided under the UP
Revenue Code, 2006.

7. This Court on 23.05.2024 while
recording the submissions of the respective
2092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsels on the question of maintainability
of the writ petition prima facie had opined
that the writ petition at the instance of the
complainant petitioner whose appeal had
been decided against him could maintain
the writ petition. However, the case was
adjourned to enable the learned counsel for
the petitioner to bring on record the Memo
of the Appeal. The learned Counsels agreed
to make their respective submissions on the
maintainability of the writ petition on the
next date fixed and accordingly the matter
is before this Court.

8. Before this Court dwells into the
issue of maintainability of the writ petition
at the instance of the petitioner whose status
is admittedly that of a complainant, it
would be apposite to look into the
allegations raised in the complaint against
the respondent no. 5.

9. The controversy between the
parties is with regard to Arazi No. 227
situate in Mauja Mainur, Patti Chaubisiha,
Tehsil-Chakia,
District-Chandauli,
recorded as 'Kot' in the Revenue Records
and is Gram Sabha land. The respondent
no. 5 is stated to have illegally occupied the
said Gram Sabha land and made temporary
constructions over the same. The petitioner
is stated to have filed complaint to the
revenue authorities apprising them of the
illegal encroachment by the respondent no.
5. Acting on the complaint the Assistant
Collector/ Tehsildar called for a report and
on the basis of the said report issued a
notice upon the respondent no. 5 in RC
Form-20 requiring the respondent no. 5 to
show cause as to why compensation for
damage and wrongful occupation not
exceeding the amount specified in the
notice be not recovered and why he should
not be evicted from the land. The
respondent no. 5 put in appearance and
filed his objections stating that the
proceedings under Section 67 of the Code
are unwarranted inasmuch as the plot no.
227 is not public utility land rather is an old
Abadi of the Zamindars over which their
Kothi existed. Plot No. 227 was adjacent to
the old Abadi of the village contained in
plot No. 186. The ancestors of the petitioner
have been residing over the plot by building
their houses. Later on an amendment in the
objections were sought which were allowed
and according to the amended plea of the
respondent no. 5, no constructions exist
over plot no. 227 rather it exists over plot
No. 225 and the entire proceedings under
Section 67 are vitiated. An inspection of the
spot is stated to have been carried out on
01.06.2023 and a report to that effect
submitted on 01.06.2023 which has been
brought on record as Annexure 8 to the writ
petition.

10. The Assistant Collector/
Tehsildar Chakia-Chandauli under his
order has recorded finding of fact on the
basis of the report dated 01.06.2023 that
constructions raised by the respondent no.
5 is on Bhumidhari land contained in Gata
No. 225 and not on Gaon Sabha Land
contained in Plot No. 227 which is the
subject matter of the proceedings under
Section 67 of the Code. He accordingly
ordered for withdrawal of the Notice under
RC Form-20 against the respondent no. 5
by order dated 01.07.2023.

11. The petitioner preferred an
Appeal against the order dated 01.07.2023
which too has been dismissed upholding
the findings of the Assistant Collector/
Tehsildar.

12. It is also not out of place to
mention here that instructions on behalf of
the state respondents have been received
5 All. Satya Narayan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2093
which are taken on record. The instructions
clearly state that after proper spot
inspection and demarcation by the revenue
team it has been found that the disputed
constructions of the respondent no. 5 exist
over his Bhumidhari plot No. 225 and not
over 227 as alleged in the complaint and the
notice under RC Form-20 has been rightly
withdrawn against the respondent no. 5. In
para 5 of the instructions it has been clearly
averred that no encroachment of the
respondent no. 5 has been found over plot
No. 227 and the proceedings for eviction of
the respondent no. 5 is unwarranted.

13. Now coming to the issue
regarding the maintainability of the writ
petition learned counsel for the petitioner
does not dispute that the petitioner is a
complainant. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the land in dispute is
Gaon Sabha land and the petitioner being a
resident of the same Gaon Sahba has a
interest in the land of the Gaon Sabha. In
case of encroachment over Gaon Sabha
land the petitioner being aggrieved by the
order of the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar
dropping the proceeding sunder Section 67
of the Code, 2006 had a right to maintain
the Appeal under Section 67 (5) of the
Revenue Code, 2006 as the Provision
provides that any person aggrieved may
within thirty days from the date of such
order prefer an appeal to the Collector. The
petitioner preferred an Appeal which has
been rejected by the impugned order. He is
thus aggrieved by the impugned order
rejecting the Appeal as also the order
dropping the proceedings under Section 67
of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 and can
maintain the instant writ petition. Reliance
has been placed upon the case of
Ghanshyam Verma and others vs. State of
UP and others reported in 2021 (7) ADJ
67.
14. Per contra, Sri Vineet Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 5
submits that the instant writ petition at the
instance of the petitioner who was
admittedly
a
complainant
is
not
maintainable as he cannot be said to be
person aggrieved. Reliance has been placed
upon the decision in the Case of Rahul
Kumar Vs. State of UP and others
reported in 2023 d(9) ADJ 614 and also in
the case of Shambhunath Pandey vs. State
of UP and 6 others, Writ C No. 29440 of
2021, decided on 10.11.2021 Neutral
Citation No. 2021:AHC:134861.
15. I have heard the respective
counsels for the parties and have perused
the materials on record and have also gone
through the case laws cited at the Bar.

16. In the opinion of the Court the
case of Ghanshyam Verma (supra) cited
by learned counsel for the petitioner lays
down the proposition of law regarding the
maintainability of an Appeal under Section
67 (5) of the Revenue Code, 2006 by a
person aggrieved. In that case the challenge
to the order of the Assistant Collector First
Class/ Tehsildar was laid by which the
Notice/ RC From-20 issued to the opposite
party therein in proceedings under Section
67 of the UP Revenue Code 2006 had been
withdrawn and the Appeal preferred against
the said order was dismissed as not
maintainable as the Appellant was not a
party to the proceedings and thus could not
be said to be aggrieved. The Court after
correctly interpreting the provisions of
Section 67 (5) of the Revenue Code, 2006
and taking note of the fact that the provision
67 (5) used the expression " Any person
aggrieved" and not "Any Party aggrieved"
held that an Appeal by a non party to the
proceedings but aggrieved would be
maintainable. The Court proceeded to
entertain the writ petition being of the
2094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considered view that the Appeal was
maintainable but was illegally dismissed as
not maintainable on the ground that the
Appellant was not party to the proceedings.

17. The factual position in the
instant case at hand is slightly different
inasmuch as the Appeal filed by the
petitioner under Section 67 (5) has not been
dismissed as not maintainable rather has
been decided on merits recording findings
in favour of the respondent no. 5 that there
was no encroachment found and in fact the
encroachment alleged was found to be over
the Bhumidhari plot of the respondent no. 5
and consequently the proceedings were
dropped.

18. The moot question for
consideration of the Court is whether in the
given set of facts the writ petition at the
instance of the petitioner is maintainable.

19. The case of Rahul Kumar
(supra) cited by Sri Vineet Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 5 in turn
relies upon the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the Case of Vivekanand Yadav vs.
State of UP and another reported in 2010
(10) ADJ 1 (FB) as also upon the decision
of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
Case of Narendra Kumar vs. State of UP
and others reported in 2013 (1) ADJ 228.

20. The question as regards the
locus standi of a Complainant came up for
consideration before the Apex Court in the
case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. Collector
reported in 2012 (4) SCC 407 wherein the
Apex Court in para 58 of the judgment
proceeded to observe as under:

"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath
Gharat, Ex-President was the complainant,
thus, at the most, he could lead the evidence
as a witness. He could not claim the status
of an adversial litigant. The complainant
cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right
is an averment of entitlement arising out of
law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a
person by the rule of law. Thus, a person
who suffers from legal injury can only
challenge the act or omission. There may be
some harm or loss that may not be wrongful
in the eyes of law because it may not result
in injury to a legal right or legally protected
interest of the complainant but juridically
harm of this description is called damnum
sine injuria"

21. Then again a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Dharam Raj Vs.
State of UP and others reported in 2010 (2)
AWC 1878 (All) with respect to locus of a
Complaint observed as under:

 "9. As evident from narration of
the facts given above, it is evident that the
petitioner was one of the complainants in
the complaint against the respondent No. 4
on 12.3.2008. The action has since been
taken on the complaint so made by the
petitioner and others against the respondent
No. 4, and fine of Rs. 5,000 has been
imposed.
 10. In the circumstances, the
petitioner cannot have any grievance in the
matter, and he is not an aggrieved person
rather he is a person annoyed,

11. In the case of R. v. London
Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice,
(1890) 25 QBD 357, the Court has held:

A person who cannot succeed in
getting a conviction against another may be
annoyed by the said findings. He may also
feel that what he thought to be a breach of
law was wrongly held to be not a breach of
law by the Magistrate.

He thus may be said to be a
person annoyed but not a person aggrieved,
5 All. Satya Narayan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2095
entitle to prefer an appeal against such
order.

12. According to our opinion a
"person aggrieved" means a person who is
wrongly deprived of his entitlement which
he is legally entitled to receive and it does
not include any kind of disappointment or
personal
inconvenience.
"Person
aggrieved" means a person who is injured
or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.

13. It is settled law that a person
who suffers from legal injury only can
challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing
a writ petition. Writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is maintainable for
enforcing a statutory or legal right or when
there is a complaint by the petitioner that
there is a breach of the statutory duty on the
part of the authorities. Therefore, there
must be a judicially enforceable right for
the enforcement of which the writ
jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court
can enforce the performance of a statutory
duty by public bodies through its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person,
provided such person satisfied the Court
that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of the said right
is the condition precedent to invoke the writ
jurisdiction [Utkal University etc. v. Dr.
Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Ors. AIR
1999 SC 943 and Laxminarayan R. Bhattad
and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
(2003) 5 SCC 413].

14. Legal right is an averment of
entitlement arising out of law. It is, in fact,
an advantage or benefit conferred upon a
person by a rule of law, [Shanti Kumar R.
Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York
AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan
v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC
1361).

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desat v.
Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and
Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 578, the Apex Court has
held that only a person who is aggrieved by
an order, can maintain a writ petition. The
expression "aggrieved person" has been
explained by the Apex Court observing that
such a person must show that he has a more
particular or peculiar interest of his own
beyond that of the general public in seeing
that the law is properly administered. In the
said case, a cinema hall owner had
challenged the sanction of setting up of a
rival cinema hall in the town contending
that it would adversely affect monopolistic
commercial interest, causing pecuniary
harm
and
loss
of
business
from
competition. The Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as under:

Such harm or loss is not wrongful
in the eye of law because it does not result
in injury to a legal right or a legally
protected interest, the business competition
causing it being a lawful activity.
Judicially, harm of this description is called
damnum sine injuria. The term injuria
being here used in its true sense reason why
law suffers a person knowingly to inflict
harm of this description on another, without
holding him accountable for it, is that such
harm done to an individual is a gain to
society at large. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstratively clear that
the appellant has not been denied or
deprived of a legal right. He has not
sustained injury to any legally protected
interest. In fact, the impugned order does
not operate as a decision against him, much
less does it wrongfully effect his title to
something. He has not been subjected to
legal wrong. He has suffered no grievance.
He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim
to hang on. Therefore, he is not a "person
aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the
no objection certificate."
 In Northern Plastics Ltd. v.
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. and
Ors.
2096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
MANU/SC/1151/1997MANU/SC/1151/19
97 : (1997) 4 SCC 452, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court again considered the
meaning of "person aggrieved" and "locus
of a rival Government undertaking" and
held that a rival businessman cannot
maintain a writ petition on the ground that
its business prospects would be adversely
affected.

16. The view taken by us that the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus he
has no locus standi to file the present writ
petition thereby challenging the order dated
16.3.2009
passed
by
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, district Sultanpur
is also supported by the decision of this
Court in the case of Suresh Singh v.
Commissioner Moradabad Division 1993
(1) AWC 601, where it was held that in an
inquiry under Section 95(g) of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the complainant
who was Up-Pradhan could be a witness in.
an inquiry but had no locus standi to
approach this Court against the order of the
State authorities, for the reasons that none
of his personal statutory right are affected.

17. As such the petitioner has no
locus standi to file the present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Even otherwise having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are
not inclined to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. "

22. In the light of the above and
taking note of the fact that the petitioner had
been permitted to file an Appeal under
Section 67 (5) of the Code which has been
decided against him by the impugned order,
the Court is of the opinion that the writ
petition at the instance of the petitioner is
maintainable. The petitioner cannot be left
remedy-less to challenge a decision
rendered against him in a statutory Appeal
where no other statutory remedy is
provided. the writ petition is thus held to be
maintainable. However, maintainability of
the writ petition is one thing while
entertainability of the writ petition is
another. Maintainability of the writ petition
does not mean that the writ petition is liable
to be entertained also.

23.

Now
coming
to
the
entertainability of the writ petition the
Court on the perusal of the impugned order
under Section 67 of the Code 2006 is of the
opinion that the proceedings against the
respondent no. 5 have been dropped on the
ground that after proper survey of the plot
by the Revenue Team and the report dated
01.06.2023 submitted along with the field
Book it was found that the alleged
constructions existed over plot No. 225
which is the Bhumidhari of the respondent
no. 5 and not over plot No. 227 alleged in
the RC Form-20 issued against him. The
entire case of the petitioner is based upon
the report dated 17.12.2017 on the basis of
which the proceedings under Section 67 is
stated to have been initiated. The report
dated 17.12.2017 was submitted without
proper survey. Once the objections were
filed by the respondent no. 5, fresh survey/
demarcation by taking fixed points was
carried out and it was found that alleged
constructions existed over plot No. 225 and
not over 227. The petitioner in the entire
writ petition has not been able to
demonstrate
how
the
report
dated
01.06.2023 is bad.

24. In view of the above the Court
finds that though the writ petition at the
instance of the petitioner/ complainant is
maintainable against the order rejecting his
appeal under Section 67 (5) of the UP
Revenue Code, 2006, but there exists no
good ground to interfere with the impugned
5 All. Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2097
orders. As a result the writ petition is
dismissed being devoid of merits. There
shall however be no order as to Costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2097
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ C No. 20603 of 2007

Vinod Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Aarushi Khare, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Rishi Kumar, Addl. C.S.C.

The U.P. Stamp (valuation of Property)
Rules, 1997- The Petitioner purchased certain
plots of land and paid stamp duty-name
recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rightsafter three years he received a show cause
notice based on an alleged inspection reportmatter proceeded exparte and order passed
same day imposing deficiency of stamp and
penalty with interest- nature of land at the time
of execution was agricultural -authorities
treated the land as non-agricultural-when St.
conducts a spot inspection without involving
property owner-it undermines credibility and
fairness of entire valuation process-impugned
order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Pushpa Sareen Vs St. of U.P. reported in
(2015) 0 Supreme (All) 132

2. Raj Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Writ-C
No.19644 of 2016 decided on April 13, 2023)
3. S.R. Cold Storage Vs Union of India & ors.
reported in 2022 SCC online (All) 550; {[2022]
448 ITR 37 (All)}

4. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India & anr.
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248

5. St. of Kerala Vs K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer
Etc. reported in (1977) 2 SCC 777

6. Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & ors.
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519

7. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited Vs Union
of India & ors. 15 reported in ILR 2023 (2) Kerala
545; (2023 SCC OnLine 366)

8. St. Bank of India & ors. Vs Rajesh Agarwal &
ors. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1

9. Ridge Vs Baldwin reported in [1964] AC 40

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. The instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been
filed
by
Vinod
Kumar
Jain
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner')
assailing the order dated December 7, 2006
passed by the District Magistrate/Collector,
Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Respondent No. 2').

FACTS

2. The facts giving rise to the
instant writ petition are delineated below:

 a.
The
Petitioner
purchased
certain plots of land vide a registered sale
deed dated July 17, 2002 and the paid stamp
duty on the same.

b. The name of the Petitioner was
recorded in revenue records as bhumidhar
with transferable rights.

c. After a period of three years
from the date of execution of the sale deed,