Allahabad High Court
Shobhnath vs Smt. Pooja Patel And 5 Others on 17 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:35274 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2052 of 2026 Shobhnath .....Petitioner(s) Versus Smt. Pooja Patel And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mani Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Court No. - 5 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Mani Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 6 and Shri Azad Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that respondents No. 5 and 6 were not the parties to the Original Suit No. 3285 of 2024 giving rise to the present petition and, therefore, the array of the parties is defective.
3. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application seeking impleadment of State of U.P. and Gram Panchayat through Pradhan has been moved before the civil court, which is pending consideration and for this reason, respondents no. 5 and 6 have been impleaded.
4. Be that as it may, considering the submissions advanced on merits of the two orders against which the present petition has been filed, coupled with the issue of array of parties, this Court proceeds to decide the matter.
5. The aforesaid suit was filed by two petitioners claiming themselves to be respectively member of the Gaon Sabha and erstwhile Pradhan. There are four defendants in the suit and the relief claimed therein is as regards cancellation of sale deed and gift deed and permanent prohibitory injunction and to protect the public property so as to maintain its original status as it is.
6. An application seeking temporary injunction was filed, which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 06.03.2025 against which Miscellaneous Civil Appeal was filed, which was also dismissed by order dated 13.01.2026.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that village Pradhan is not taking interest in the matter and the existing defendants have succeeded to get sale deed and gift deed executed fraudulently in relation to a pasture land, which is a public utility land and, therefore, pending suit, they should be restrained from alienating the same and interfering in its public user. It is further submitted that the trial court rejected the injunction application pointing out defect in locus of the plaintiffs and the appellate court has non-suited them on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. State and the Gaon Sabha. It is further submitted that in case public property is not saved from interference and intended sale, the purpose of law would stand defeated and the public would suffer at large.
8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has made submissions that the petitioners being member and ex-pradhan, have no locus to maintain the suit itself and, therefore, there is no force in the claim for injunction.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the learned Civil Judge rejected the injunction application by observing that there is a valid presumption in relation to registered deeds and unless the plaintiffs express their concern with the property in dispute, they would have no right to claim injunction and, consequently, the application has been rejected by recording that names of beneficiaries of the disputed documents have also been mutated in the revenue records.
10. The Appellate Court has dismissed the Misc. Civil Appeal not only on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, but also taking aid of Section 73 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 regarding due representation of the plaintiffs of the proceedings without any permission obtained from the Collector.
11. The suit in question has been filed purportedly under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The said provision reads as under:- “31. When cancellation may be ordered.? (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. ……………..”
12. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that adjudging a document void and voidable can be sought from the civil court by any person against whom the document is void or voidable and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury.
13. Admittedly, the land in dispute does not belong to the plaintiffs-petitioners, therefore, their claim under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not tenable.
14. So far as reliefs no. 2 and 3 claimed in the suit, plaintiffs appear to get the public property saved from alienation etc.
15. Though the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also previously existing provisions under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 contemplate obtaining permission from the Collector when a suit concerning the public utility land is instituted by Gram Sabha through a private counsel (here even that situation is not existent as suit has not been instituted by Gram Sabha), irrespective of the same and considering the fact that the petitioners themselves are not claiming the present status as Pradhan, but one of the plaintiffs is only present member and other is ex-Pradhan, ignoring even the aspect of obtaining permission from the Collector, the nature of reliefs no. 2 and 3 claimed in the suit appear to be prima facie covered by Rule 8 of Order I C.P.C., where one or more such person, who intend to sue on behalf and for the benefit of various persons, institute a suit in the representative capacity. The question as to whether members of the Gaon Sabha and ex-pradhan can represent the villagers at large, if raised, can be examined in a suit if filed in a representative capacity under Rule 8 Order I C.P.C. Such provisions contemplate grant of leave by the civil court and without such leave, even such a suit can not be instituted.
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, suit itself appears to be not maintainable at the behest of the present petitioners, who have invited intervention by and finding of this Court on their locus to maintain the suit as well as to press the injunction application.
17. In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any error in rejection of the injunction application even on merits and for want of locus.
18. The petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
February 17, 2026
Sazia
Â
Â