Jitendra Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:104148
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A petition in the nature of public interest litigation that is actuated by private motivation rather than genuine public interest may be disposed of without entertaining the substantive claims raised therein. Where a statute provides a specific procedure and remedy for the declaration of a transaction as void — such as Sections 104/105 of the Code, 2006, which address the voidability of sale deeds executed by persons of scheduled caste category without requisite permission — a party seeking such relief should approach the appropriate authority under those statutory provisions rather than invoke the PIL jurisdiction of the High Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to ensure that the land of arazi no. 254, Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi may be vested in the Gaon Sabha as purchasers (i.e. respondent to.6 to 11) of the land of arazi no. 254, situated at Village Sijwaha, District Jhansi are the persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste has purchased the land of the Scheduled Caste without permission of the District Collector."
3. The averment made in the writ petition and the relief claimed in it is in fact that the sale deed executed in respect of plot no.254 by persons belonging to scheduled caste category without obtaining requisite permission in favour of respondent nos.6 to 11 be held to be void ab initio.
4. Perusal of paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition shows that one villager Keshvendra has filed Case No.4 of 2024 before the Deputy District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos.6 to 8, therefore, the petitioner could have also approached the appropriate authority under the aforesaid provisions of law to get the other sale deed declared void.
5. The present PIL for declaration of sale deeds to be void and land to be vested in the State appears to be privately motivated, rather than a petition in public interest.
6. As under Section 104/105 of the Code, 2006, there exists specific provision for declaration of sale deed executed by person belonging to scheduled caste category without obtaining requisite permission to be void, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the aforesaid provisions of law.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ashok Kr.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free