Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs District Magistrate, Sultanpur And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6051 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
District Magistrate, Sultanpur And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhakar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
A.F.R.
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Addl. C.S.C.
for the State.
2. By means of the present petition, petitioner has prayed for
the following prayer:
"........... this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleaded to
direct to the opposite party no. 1 to conclude the
encroachment proceedings of the arising out from
section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code of 2006 pending as
Case No. 2025468001098 before the court of
District Magistrate, District Sultanpur expeditiously
within time specified by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though
the office has marked defect regarding maintainability of the
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the
relief claimed, but in view of the judgment in Special Appeal
, the
No. 351 of 2025, Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. & ors.
Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India can issue direction to the District

A227 No. 6051 of 2026
2
Magistrate hearing the proceeding under Section 66 of the U.P.
Revenue Code 2006.
4. It is also submitted that the application of the petitioner
under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been
pending since 2025 before the Chief Revenue Officer,
Sultanpur, in pursuance to a reference order of Tehsildar dated
07.04.2025 in compliance of the order passed in PIL No. 1134
of 2024, dated 17.03.2025, therefore, the District
Magistrate/Chief Revenue Officer may be directed to conclude
the proceeding.
5. Per contra , the learned Addl. C.S.C. has opposed the prayer
and submitted that the revenue authorities hearing the
application under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code
2006 would not be covered within the definition of the 'Court'
for the purpose of Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, for expeditious disposal the applicant has to file a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, the question arises as
to whether for the expeditious disposal of a proceeding before
the revenue court, which includes the proceedings under
Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, direction can be
given under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? To decide
this issue, it would be appropriate to quote Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, which reads as under:
"227. Power of superintendence over all
courts by the High Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence
over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises
jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions, the High Court may--

A227 No. 6051 of 2026
3
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and
prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such courts;
and
(c) prescribe forms in which books,
entries and accounts shall be kept by the
officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to
be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers
of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and
pleaders practising therein:Provided that any rules
made, forms prescribed or tables settled under
clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent
with the provision or any law for the time being in
force, and shall require the previous approval of the
Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer
on a High Court powers of superintendence over
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any
law relating to the Armed Forces."
7. Definition of the "Court" has not been given in the General
Clauses Act, however, the same has been given in the Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred as 'BSA') and as per
the definition given under Section 2(a) of the BSA, the "Court"
includes all Judges, Magistrates, and all persons, who are
legally authorized to take evidence. Definition of "Court"
mentioned in Section 2(a) of the BSA is being quoted
hereunder:
" Section 2(a). - " Court ". - "Court" includes all
Judges, Magistrates, and authorized legal persons
(excluding arbitrators), legally authorised to take

A227 No. 6051 of 2026
4
evidence."
8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
consider the nature of proceeding under Section 66 of U.P.
Revenue Code.
9. Section 66 of the Code, 2006, provides inquiry regarding the
irregular allotment of abadi sites and procedure for conducting
inquiry has been mentioned under Rule 65 of U.P. Revenue
Code Rules, 2016.
10. For reference, Rule 65 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
is being quoted as under:
65. Procedure for Inquiry into irregular allotment
of abadi sites (Section 66) - (1) The Collector may,
of his own motion and shall, on the application of
any person aggrieved by any order of allotment
under Rule 61 or 62 proceed to make an inquiry in
the manner given hereunder.

(2) The application under this Rule shall be
supported by affidavit. The applicant or his counsel
shall make the endorsement with date of filing the
application. It shall be registered in the register of
the case within a period of two working days from
the date of filing the application.

(3) The allottee and Land Management Committee
shall be necessary parties to all such cases.

(4) The applicant may move an application
supported with affidavit for interim relief and the
Collector may on such application of any party or
otherwise may pass suitable interim orders at any
time before the final disposal of the case.

A227 No. 6051 of 2026
5
(5) If the Collector is prima facie satisfied that the
applicant is an aggrieved person, he shall call upon
all persons interested in the order of allotment to
appear and present their case before him by filing
counter affidavit within three weeks from the date of
service of notice. The further time for filing the
counter affidavit may be granted by the Collector on
the sufficient grounds shown for the purpose.

(6) If the counter affidavit is filed, the two weeks'
time for filing the rejoinder affidavit shall be
granted which may be extended on the sufficient
ground shown for the purpose.

(7) Where the proceeding is initiated suo motu, the
Collector shall call upon all persons interested in
the order of allotment to appear and present their
case before him.

(8) It shall not be necessary to record evidence but
the memo of the day to day inquiry shall be kept on
record by the Collector.

(9) If the Collector, on making inquiries, is satisfied
that the allotment is irregular, he shall cancel the
allotment and thereupon the right, title and interest
of the allottee and of every other person claiming
through him in the land shall cease and the same
shall re-vest in the Gram Panchayat.

(10) The Collector shall make an endeavour to
conclude the inquiry within the period not exceeding
six months from the date of registration of the case
and if the inquiry is not concluded within the period
aforesaid the reason for the same shall be recorded.

A227 No. 6051 of 2026
6
11. From a perusal of the procedure prescribed by Rule 65 of
Rules, 2016, it is clear that the Allottee and Land Management
Committee are necessary parties, and the Collector before
passing any order will afford the opportunity of hearing to the
allottee, including taking evidence on affidavit.
12. As per Section 2(a) of BSA, any person, legally authorized
to take evidence, will be deemed to be 'Court'. Therefore, the
revenue authority hearing the proceeding under Section 66 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, would come within the ambit of
'Court'. The proceeding under Section 66 is quasi-judicial
character in nature, rather than merely implementing the
executive direction. The coordinate bench of this court in the
case of
Ramvraksha alias Kalicharan and another v. State
of U.P. and 4 others, Writ-C No. 21931 of 2020 . It is also
observed in that case that proceeding under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, is akin to quasi-judicial exercise of
power.
13. Now, the question arises whether the Revenue Officer
before whom the proceeding under Section 66 of the Revenue
Code has been pending is a revenue court? The definition of
Revenue Court has been given in Section 4(16) of the U.P.
Revenue Code 2006. As per this definition, the Collector,
Additional Collector (Chief Revenue Officer) will also be the
revenue court. Section 4(16) of the U.P. Revenue Code is being
quoted hereunder:
" Section 4(16) - " Revenue Court " means all or any
of the following authorities (that is to same) the
Board and all members thereof, Commissioners,
Additional Commissioners, Collectors, Additional
Collectors, [Chief Revenue Officers, Assistant
Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement
Officers, Record Officers, Assistant Record
Officers, Tahsildars, Tahsildars (Judicial) and Naib
Tahsildars;]"

A227 No. 6051 of 2026
7
14. From the above noted provision, it is clear that the collector
or the Additional Collector is the revenue court and during the
proceeding under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006
they are also authorized to take evidence, therefore, the Chief
Revenue Officer while hearing the proceeding under Section
66 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 would be a "court/revenue
court" and the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has superintendence over all courts, which includes the
revenue court. Hence, in exercise of power under Article 227
of the Constitution of India the High Court can issue direction
to the revenue courts for expeditious disposal of the cases.
Therefore, petition for direction for expeditious disposal of
cases to the revenue court would be maintainable under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, defect raised by the
reporting section is incorrect, hence overruled.
15. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking direction to
conclude the proceeding under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, expeditiously. Therefore, this court in exercise of
its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, direct
the opposite party no. 1 to conclude the proceeding of Case No.
2025468001098 under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, in
the light of the observation made in the case of
Daya Shanker
v. State of U.P. & ors., 2023 (6) ADJ 181
16. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is
disposed of .
17. Copy of this order be sent to the Incharge, Reporting
Section of High Court at Lucknow and Allahabad.
November 3, 2026
A.Nigam
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUJ NIGAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench