# Sukh Ram & Ors v. U.P. Board Of Revenue Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 773
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-25
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 31127 of 2019
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukh-ram-ors-v-u-p-board-of-revenue-lko-ors-53759
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Ishwar
Dutt
Shukla,
Sanjeev
Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
The dispute falls for consideration with respect
to succession of the property of one Govinde
S/o Daili and whether Smt. Hardei, widow of
Govinde, had remarried after his death, thereby
ceasing her right to succeed under S. 172 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,

## Text

8 All. Sukh Ram & Ors. Vs. U.P. Board of Revenue Lko. & Ors.
773

32. In the aforesaid circumstances,
present writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and
its legal consequence shall follow.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 773
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 31127 of 2019

Sukh Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Board Of Revenue Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Hemant
Kumar
Mishra,
Arti
Ganguly,
Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ravi Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Ishwar
Dutt
Shukla,
Sanjeev
Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
The dispute falls for consideration with respect
to succession of the property of one Govinde
S/o Daili and whether Smt. Hardei, widow of
Govinde, had remarried after his death, thereby
ceasing her right to succeed under S. 172 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950.
Headnotes
Land Revenue Act - S. 34 - Mutation -
effect of remarriage of widow - Whether
widow remarried after death of husband -
burden
of
proof
on
party
alleging
remarriage - finding must rest on cogent
and reliable evidence - The U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - S.
172 - Succession by widow - ceases on
remarriage - remarriage must be proved
by
reliable
evidence
establishing
performance of ceremonies under Hindu
Marriage Act - Question of marriage has to
be established on facts even in absence of
documentary evidence - Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, SS. 7 & 8 - Mere oral assertion
or
village
hearsay
insufficient
-
ceremonies must be proved - registration
cannot
confer
legitimacy
without
solemnization - Evidence - proof of
marriage - Hearsay statements of Lekhpal
and interested witnesses unreliable -
finding
of
remarriage
without
proof
perverse - interference under Article 226
- Justified.
Held: Oral statements and hearsay evidence
are insufficient to establish remarriage under S.
7 of the Hindu Marriage Act - In the absence of
any documentary evidence, marriage certificate,
or credible witness to the alleged remarriage,
the conclusion of the revenue courts is perverse
and arbitrary - The findings regarding Smt.
Hardei's alleged
remarriage are ex facie
perverse - There is no proof of the essential
ceremonies, of marriage being performed nor
has any custom been established - Courts below
relied on vague assertions, stray documents,
and
revenue
entries,
while
ignoring
contemporaneous records where Smt. Hardei
continued to describe herself as a widow - No
finding of fact with regard to the marriage of
Hardei could have been returned by the
Tehsildar - Burden to prove remarriage lay on
private respondents, which they failed to
discharge - The findings of the Tehsildar,
appellate
and
revisional
authorities
were
perverse and based on conjecture - Petition
allowed - Orders dated 11.08.2000, 14.06.2011,
17.10.2011, and 14.10.2019 are set aside.
(Paras 21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
State of U.P. v. Laxmi Sugars and Oil Mills Ltd.,
(2013) 10 SCC 509; General Manager,
Electrical Rengali Hydroelectric Project, Odisha
v. Girdhari Sahu, (2019) 10 SCC 695; Dolly
Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC
587.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950; U.P. Land Revenue Act; Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Remarriage - Widow - Mutation - Succession -
Will - Ex-parte - Nearest surviving heir -
Bhumidhari rights - Burden of proof - Hearsay
evidence - Hindu rites and rituals - Revenue
records - Perversity - Summary proceedings -
Cogent Evidence - Reliable evidence - Valid
Marriage.
Case Arising From
Order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Uttar
Pradesh Board of Revenue which dismissed the
revision preferred by the petitioner and upheld
the validity of the orders passed by courts
below,
namely,
orders
dated
11.08.2000,
14.06.2011 and 17.10.2011.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Hemant Kumar Mishra, Arti Ganguly, Pankaj
Kumar Singh, Ravi Prakash
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ishwar Dutt Shukla, Sanjeev Dwivedi

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

1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for petitioners as well as
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent and Sri Ishwar Dutt Shukla,
learned counsel for private respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of present
writ petition has assailed the validity and
legality of the order dated 14.10.2019
passed by Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue
wherein they have dismissed the revision
preferred by the petitioner and has upheld
the validity of the orders passed by courts
below, namely, orders dated 11.08.2000,
14.06.2011 and 17.10.2011.

3. The dispute which falls for
consideration in the present case pertain to
the succession of the property of one
Govinde S/o Daili. Govinde had died in
1960 leaving behind his wife Smt. Hardei
and after the death of Govinde name of
Hardei was recorded in the revenue records
on 17.08.1964.

4. After a very long period of time
around 36 years, an application was moved
by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on 04.07.2000
U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act for mutating
their names in place of Smt. Hardei on
account of fact that Smt. Hardei has
remarried 15 years prior and therefore as
per provisions of Section 172 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 has ceased her right to succeed to
the property of Govinde on account of her
marriage with one Haripal and in the
aforesaid circumstances a prayer was made
to mutate the name of Pyare Lal and
Shatrohan.

5. The Tehsildar, Tehsil - Sadar,
Lucknow considering the fact that no
objections
were
filed
against
the
application U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act
and perused the revenue records wherein he
found that the disputed land was recorded
in the name of Govinde in the revenue
records pertaining to fasli 1400-1405 as
well as in 1406-1411 after whose death his
widow Hardei succeeded to the said
property and also considered the evidence
given by the Regional Lekhpal, Anil
Kumar, according to which Hardei the
widow
of
Govinde
had
remarried
Haripal and accordingly came to the
conclusion
that
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances Hardei would be divested
of her share succeed of the property of
Govinde. While the applicant was the
nephew of Govinde and that Govinde
had died intestate the applicant was held
to be duly entitled to succeed the
property of Govinde and accordingly
allowed the application and accordingly
deleted the name of Hardei with the
further direction that name of Praye Lal
and
Shatrohan
were
likely
to
be
substituted in her place.
8 All. Sukh Ram & Ors. Vs. U.P. Board of Revenue Lko. & Ors.
775

6. Subsequently, Hardei W/o of
Govinde moved an application for recall on
19.09.2002 stating that she had succeeded
to the property of Govinde who was her
husband and further stated that she was
never served notice during the proceeding
and the order dated 11.08.2000 was exparte. She had further clearly stated in
paragraph no. 8 of her application that after
the death of Govinde she has never married
and the application for mutation was given
by the Pyare Lal and Shatrohan only to
usurp
the
property
of
Hardei
and
accordingly sought recall of the order dated
11.08.2000.

7. It has been submitted that it is
during pendency of the recall application
that
Hardei
W/o
Govinde
died
on
27.04.2005 and her application for recall
was also rejected on 14.06.2011 by
Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow. The Tehsidlar,
Sadar, Lucknow duly recorded the fact of
the death of the applicant Hardei. The
Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow has duly
considered the evidence of Shiv Narain S/o
Moti Lal as well as statement of Lekhpal
on the basis of which he has returned a
finding that Hardei had married Haripal
after death of previous husband.

8. A perusal of the statement of the
Anil Kumar, Regional Lekhpal which was
recorded on 09.08.2000. It was stated that
the name of Hardei was mutated in the
revenue records after the death of Govinde
and that she has remarried after his death
with Haripal and that Pyare Lal and
Shatrohan S/o Raman are nephew of
Govinde. It is relevant to notice that from
the aforesaid statement, it is clear that Anil
Kumar, Regional Lekhpal was not present
during the said wedding and has only stated
that said fact on account of knowledge derived
by him from the villagers but has failed to
disclose as to which villager has given the said
information and as to whether he has verified
the said information.

9. Even the statement of Shatrohan which
is on record, he has stated that his aunt
(Chachi) Hardei had married 2-3 years after
the death of Govinde. Shatrohan has stated his
age to be 30 years while Govinde died in the
year 1960 and Shatrohan in all probability was
not even born when Hardei had married
Haripal, and apart from the above he is an
interested party in the case and no evidence
was produced by him.

10. After the death of Hardei, the
petitioners also claimed their rights on the
disputed land and for having their names to be
mutated in the revenue records in place of
Hardei as she has left a registered will in
favour of petitioners dated 11.08.2000 and on
the basis of the will, the petitioners claimed
their rights to succeed the property of Hardei.

11.
Accordingly,
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow
while deciding the application of respondents
U/S 34 of Land Revenue Code, 2006, held that
the remarriage of Hardei had taken place about
15 years prior to filing of the said application
and consequently from the date of remarriage,
she has become dis-entitled to succeed the
property of Govinde and any Will made
subsequently will not have any effect upon
bequeathing the right of the Hardei in favour
of petitioners inasmuch as on account of
succession as per provision of Section 172 of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the applicants i.e.
Pyare Lal and Shatrohan would succeed to the
property of Govinde and accordingly rejected
the application for recall and reaffirming the
previous order dated 11.08.2000.

12. The petitioners being aggrieved by
the order of Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 14.06.2011 as well as order dated
11.08.2000 preferred an appeal U/S 210 of
the Land Revenue Act before the Dy.
Collector
(Revenue),
Lucknow
who
rejected the appeal by means of order dated
17.10.2011, against which a revision was
preferred before the Board of Revenue
which was also rejected by means of order
dated 14.10.2019 which has been assailed
in the present writ petition.

13. Learned counsel for petitioners has
submitted that the central issue which
deserves to be decided on the basis of
evidence was the fact as to whether Hardei
W/o Govinde had remarried after his death
to Haripal. In case she had remarried then
by the operation of provision of Section
172 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the property
of Govinde will devolve upon his nearest
surviving
heirs
which
are
private
respondents who are nephew of Govinde.

14. While on the other hand, in case it
is established that she did not remarry after
the death of Govinde then there is no
dispute with regard to registered will
having been executed by her on 28.08.1990
in favour of petitioners who would be
entitled to succeed to the property of
Govinde/Hardei. There is no dispute that on
an application made by private respondents
U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act, the
application was allowed ex-parte where
Hardei had not participated. It was alleged
that after the death of Govinde in 1960
Hardei had married Haripal and therefore
had disentitled herself from succeeding the
property of Govinde as per Section 172 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which reads as
under:-

"172. Succession in the case of a
woman holding an interest inherited as a
widow, mother, daughter, etc.

- [(1) When a bhumidhar, [* * *]
[Substituted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954.]
or asami who has after the date of vesting,
inherited an interest in any holding-

(a)as a widow, widow of a male
lineal descendant, in the male line of
descent, mother or father's mother dies,
marries, abandons or surrenders such
holding or part thereof; or

(b)as a daughter, son's daughter,
sister or half-sister being the daughter of
the same father as the deceased [marries]
[Inserted by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1958.]
dies, abandons or surrenders such holding
or part thereof,

the holding or the part shall
devolve upon the nearest surviving heir
(such
heir
being
ascertained
in
accordance with the provisions of Section
171) of the last male bhumidhar, [* * *]
[Omitted by U.P Act No. 8 of 1977(w.e.f.
28.01.1977).] or asami.]

(2)Where a bhumidhar [* * *]
[Omitted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977(w.e.f.
28.01 1977).] who has before the date of
vesting inherited an interest in any holding
as a [widow, widow of a male lineal
descendant in the male line of descent,
mother, daughter, father's mother, son's
daughter, sister or half-sister being the
daughter of the same father as the
deceased] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 20
of 1954.]-

(a)dies and such bhumidhar [* *
*] [Omitted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977
(w.e.f. 28.01.1977).] was on the date
immediately before the said date an
intermediary of the land comprised in the
holding or held the holding as a fixed rate
tenant, or an exproprietary or occupancy
8 All. Sukh Ram & Ors. Vs. U.P. Board of Revenue Lko. & Ors.
777
tenant in Avadh or as a tenant on special
terms in Avadh and-

(i)she was in accordance with the
personal law applicable to her entitled to a
life estate only in the holding, the holding
shall devolve upon the nearest surviving
heir (such heir being ascertained in
accordance with the provisions of Section
171) of the last male intermediary or tenant
aforesaid; and if

(ii)she was in accordance with
the personal law applicable to her entitled
to the holding absolutely the holding shall
devolve in accordance with the table
mentioned in Section 174;

(b)[ dies, abandons or surrenders
and in the case of a widow, widow of a
male lineal descendant in the male line of
descent, mother, father's mother, marries
such bhumidhar [* * *] [Substituted by
U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954.] on the date
immediately before the said date held the
holding otherwise than as an intermediary
or tenant referred to in Clause (a), the
holding shall devolve upon the nearest
surviving heir (such heir being ascertained
in accordance with the provisions of
Section 171) of the last male tenant.]

(3)The provisions of sub-section
(1) mutatis mutandis apply to an asami who
inherited the holding before the date of
vesting.

(4)Nothing in sub-section (1)
shall apply to a person succeeding to an
interest in any holding under the provisions
of Section 174.

Explanation. - For the purposes
of this section the expression "last male
bhumidhar, [* * *] [Omitted by U.P. Act
No. 8 of 1977 (w.e.f. 28.01.1977).] or
asami" includes the last male tenant,
grove-holder, permanent lessee in Avadh,
grantee or sir or khudkasht holder, as the
case may be."

15. The aforesaid application was
allowed on 11.08.2000 subsequent to
which an application for recall was
preferred
by
Hardei
wherein
in
paragraph No. 8, she has clearly stated
that she has not remarried and she was
not
served
with
any
notice
in
proceedings U/S 34 of Land Revenue
Act which were defective and in fact the
orders were passed without effecting
service upon her. Before her application
could
be
decided,
she
died
on
27.04.2005
and
subsequently
the
petitioners
entered
into
the
said
litigation claiming their rights to succeed
the property of late Hardei on the basis
of a will executed by her on 28.08.1990.

16. The Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow
decide
the
application
rejecting
the
contention of the petitioners as well as
application of recall filed by late Hardei
and upheld his previous order dated
11.08.2000. While passing the said order,
he relied upon the evidence on record
which were in the shape of statement of
Anil Kumar, Regional Lekhpal and the
evidence of Shatrohan, both of them stated
that Hardei had married after death of
Govinde.

17. The appellate authority and the
revisional authority have merely reiterated
the findings recorded by Tehsildar, Sadar
and held that due opportunity of hearing
has been given to all the parties and the
order has been passed after due perusal of
material records which did not require
interference.
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. The writ petition has been
vehemently opposed by Sri I.D. Shukla,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
private respondents. He has submitted that
there is no dispute that Hardei had
remarried after death of Govinde which in
fact is evident from various documents
filed by the petitioners themselves specially
the document where the address of Hardei
has been disclosed to be same address as
that of Haripal and submitted that once it is
established that Hardei and Haripal were
living together then there is no difficulty to
presume that they were living as husband
and wife. He further supported the findings
recorded by all the authorities below and
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

19. The objection of the private
respondents that the concurrent findings of
the three courts below with regard to the
alleged remarriage of Smt. Hardei cannot
be interfered with under Article 226 of the
Constitution is without substance. The
authorities cited by them, namely State of
U.P. v. Laxmi Sugars and Oil Mills Ltd.
(2013) 10 SCC 509 and General Manager,
Electrical Rengali Hydroelectric Project,
Odisha v. Girdhari Sahu (2019) 10 SCC
695, merely reiterate the principle that writ
courts ordinarily do not disturb findings of
fact. They do not, however, preclude
interference where the findings suffer from
perversity or manifest error apparent on the
face of the record. It is well settled that a
writ court can intervene when conclusions
are based on no evidence, are contrary to
material on record, or proceed on a clear
misdirection in law.

20.
Having
heard
the
rival
contention of the parties. The only
aspect which is to be determined by this
Court is as to whether there was
sufficient material on record on the basis
of which the Tehsildar and the SubDivisional Magistrate have held that that
Hardei widow of Govinde had remarried
after his death. Accordingly in case it is
established that Hardei has remarried
then as Section 172 of Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act will
dis-entitle her from succeeding to the
estate of Govinde (her late husband).
This fact was only stated in the
application
filed
by
the
private
respondents U/S 34 of Land Revenue
Act and clearly denied by Smt. Hardei in
her application for recall.

21. In order to establish a marriage
under the Hindu Marriage Act, it had to
be demonstrated that Smt. Hardei was
married to Haripal in accordance with
Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act. Oral
statement of certain parties merely
stating that Haripal was married to
Haripal would not establish a valid
marriage.

22. This aspect of the matter was
considered by Hon?ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dolly Rani Vs. Manish
Kumar Chanchal, 2025 (2) SCC 587,
and held as under:-

"21. Under Section 8 of the
Act, it is open for two Hindus married
under the provisions of the Act to have
their marriage registered provided they
fulfil the conditions laid down therein
regarding
performance
of
requisite
ceremonies. It is only when the marriage
is solemnised in accordance with Section
7, there can be a marriage registered
under Section 8. The State Governments
have the power to make rules relating to
the registration of marriages between
two Hindus solemnised by way of
requisite ceremonies. The advantage of
8 All. Sukh Ram & Ors. Vs. U.P. Board of Revenue Lko. & Ors.
779
registration is that it facilitates proof of
factum of marriage in a disputed case.

22. But if there has been no
marriage in accordance with Section 7, the
registration would not confer legitimacy to
the marriage. We find that the registration
of Hindu marriages under the said
provision is only to facilitate the proof of a
Hindu marriage but for that, there has to
be a Hindu marriage in accordance with
Section 7 of the Act inasmuch as there must
be a marriage ceremony which has taken
place between the parties in accordance
with the said provision. Although the
parties may have complied with the
requisite conditions for a valid Hindu
marriage as per Section 5 of the Act in the
absence
of
there
being
a
"Hindu
marriage" in accordance with Section 7 of
the Act, i.e., solemnization of such a
marriage, there would be no Hindu
marriage in the eye of law.

23. In the absence of there being
a valid Hindu marriage, the Marriage
Registration Officer cannot register such a
marriage under the provisions of Section 8
of the Act. Therefore, if a certificate is
issued
stating
that
the
couple
had
undergone marriage and if the marriage
ceremony had not been performed in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act, then
the registration of such marriage under
Section 8 would not confer any legitimacy
to such a marriage. The registration of a
marriage under Section 8 of the Act is only
to confirm that the parties have undergone
a valid marriage ceremony in accordance
with Section 7 of the Act. In other words, a
certificate of marriage is a proof of validity
of Hindu marriage only when such a
marriage has taken place and not in a case
where there is no marriage ceremony
performed at all."

23. There is no dispute that no
document or marriage certificate was filed
indicating remarriage of Hardei. It is during
the proceedings that statement of Anil
Kumar, Regional Lekhpal and Shatrohan
were recorded. Anil Kumar, Regional
Lekhpal in his statement has only stated
that he came to know that about remarriage
of Hardei from villagers. This Court does
not find that the said statement would be
reliable or worthy of any credence to
establish the remarriage of Hardei. There is
no material to indicate that either he
himself was witness of the marriage or as
to the person who has told him that Hardei
had remarried.

24. With regard to the factum of
remarriage of Hardei, the testimony of Anil
Kumar,
Regional
Lekhpal
is
totally
unreliable and is not trustworthy or of any
credence. Shatrohan himself was a party to
the proceedings and has only given lip
service to the fact that Hardei had
remarried. Evidently he has not even born
when Hardei is alleged to have remarried
nor did he give any evidence as to how he
derived the knowledge that Hardei had
remarried. Accordingly, the testimony of
both aforesaid witnesses is unreliable and
on the basis of such unreliable evidence no
finding of fact with regard to the marriage
of Hardei could have been returned by the
Tehsildar, Sadar while deciding the aspect
of mutation in favour of the applicants.

25. Even in summary proceedings
where a finding has to be returned with
regard to a particular fact, then such finding
should be based on cogent and reliable
evidence
and not on
the basis
of
conjectures and surmises. Question of
marriage has to be established on facts even
in absence of documentary evidence. A
Hindu marriage is solemnized in the
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presence of all the relatives and friends and
villagers and performed by a Priest and
there facts have to be established in order
ot prove a valid marriage.

26.
Statement
of
Anil
Kumar,
Regional Lekhpal and Shatrohan are mere
hearsay evidence and cannot fulfill the
lacunae of any direct or cogent evidence in
this regard and consequently merely on the
basis of the said evidence the findings has
been returned with regard to marriage of
Hardei. It is in the aforesaid reasons, this
Court find itself unable to accept findings
recorded by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow
in
his
order
dated
14.06.2011
and
accordingly this Court finds that even the
orders of the appellate authority and the
revisional authority are arbitrary having
upheld the order of Tehsildar, Sadar dated
14.06.2011.

27. In the present case, contrary to oral
assertion made by petitioners while moving
the application U/S 34 of Land Revenue
Act, late Hardei while filing the application
for recall in paragraph No. 8 had clearly
denied that she had remarried after the
death of Govinde.

28. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
burden of proof lay upon the private
respondents to establish that a valid
marriage had taken place in accordance
with Hindu rites and rituals which they
have clearly failed to establish. There is no
evidence
let
by
the
petitioners
to
demonstrate that late Hardei had validly
married Haripal and in absence of any such
evidence no finding can be returned with
regard to remarriage of Hardei. The proof
of marriage is a matter of fact and the
burden of proof lay upon the private
respondents to establish the same and they
failed to establish the said fact before the
Tehsildar, Sadar and accordingly the
findings returned in favour of the private
respondents and and against the Hardei was
illegal and arbitrary, liable to be set aside.

29. In the present case, the findings
regarding Smt. Hardei's alleged remarriage
are ex facie perverse. There is no proof of
the essential ceremonies, of marriage being
performed nor has any custom been
established; instead, the courts below relied
on vague assertions, stray documents, and
revenue
entries,
while
ignoring
contemporaneous
records
where
Smt.
Hardei continued to describe herself as a
widow. The testimonies on which reliance
was placed are inconsistent and fail to
discharge the burden of proving a valid
remarriage. The conclusions drawn are thus
contrary to both evidence and law, and
cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court
would be justified in setting aside the
findings despite their concurrence.

30. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
writ petition is allowed. The orders dated
11.08.2000
,
14.06.2011,
17.10.2011,
14.10.2019 are set aside.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 780
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 719 of 2022
&
Connected With Other Matters

Mohan Lal Srivastava & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: