HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Asharam .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhagwan Das, Ravi Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Deepak Gaur Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.00551 of 2018, Computer Case No.D201806450000551. In the said proceedings resolution of the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner dated

13.02.1988 was cancelled.

2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Case No.1727 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202506000001727. The said revision was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide order dated 28.10.2025, hence the present writ petition.

3. It is argued that earlier a notice under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued to the petitioner by the Collector, Lalitpur on 09.07.2018 thereafter an order dated 30.07.1998 was passed against the petitioner under sub Section (4) of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.

Act, Act, 1950 was cancelled.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner which was numbered as Revision No.150/44 of 1997-98. The said revision was Division, Jhansi. Inspite of the aforesaid, fresh proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in which the aforesaid orders were passed.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

6. From perusal of record and after going through the orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 respectively, the Court is very much shocked and surprised regarding the manner in which the aforesaid orders were passed. Both the orders are absolutely non-speaking order, though specific ground has been taken by the petitioner in the Revision that proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could not be decided after expiry of 5 years and though the aforesaid fact has been noted by the Respondent No.2 in its order dated 28.10.2025 but considering the same by a non-speaking order, the order passed by the court below dated

30.08.2025 was affirmed.

7. After going through the aforesaid order, the Court is prima facie satisfied that both the authorities not even elementary knowledge of the revisional law.

8. In this view of the matter, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are directed to file their personal affidavit explaining the reasons that why the matter should not be referred to the Law Department of the State Government.

9. The aforesaid affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

10. List this matter on 25.02.2026.

11. The matter will be taken up at 10:00 a.m.

12. Until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the order Mandal, Jhansi/ Respondent No.2 in Revision No.1727 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202506000001727 as well as order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lalitpur/ Respondent No.3 in Case No.00551 of 2018, Computer Case No.D201806450000551, shall remain stayed.

13. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the copy of this order to the Respondent Nos.2 namely Additional Commissioner (Admin) Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi & Respondent No.3 namely Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lalitpur through concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, forthwith.

(Prakash Padia,J.) February 18, 2026 Swati

SWATI PATHAK

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad