RAJARAM vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - SHER BAHADUR SINGH — WRIC/8180/2026

Next hearing: 15th May 2026.

Next hearing 15-May-2026

CNR: UPHC011130482026

Filing Number

WRIC/

Filing Date

19-Feb-2026

Registration No

WRIC/8180/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Writs relating to Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 and Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules 2016 ( 110400 )

Sub-Category

( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Civil WRITS

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJARAM

    Adv. MUDIT AGNIHOTRI,HARISHCHANDRA YADAV,HARISHCHANDRA YADAV, ,HARISHCHANDRA YADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - SHER BAHADUR SINGH

  2. 2.COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUDAUN

  3. 3.ASSISTANT COLLECTOR / TEHSILDAR, SAHASWAN

  4. 4.LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF VILLAGE RASOOLPUR KALAN, TEHSIL SAHASWAN

Case History

  1. 15-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-May-2026

    —

    Manish Kumar Nigam

  3. 08-May-2026

    —

    Manish Kumar Nigam

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Fresh

    Prakash Padia

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Manish Kumar NigamView PDF

    Case Summary: WRIC 8180/2026 Rajaram challenged a revenue proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, contending that an order was passed based on spot inspection without proper demarcation and that the Lekhpal failed to appear. The High Court found the matter requires consideration and adjourned the case, directing respondents to file counter-affidavit within four weeks and imposing status quo until next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 19-Mar-2026

    Fresh

    Prakash Padia

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 19-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WRIC/8180/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WRIC 8180/2026 Rajaram challenged a revenue proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, contending that an order was passed based on spot inspection without proper demarcation and that the Lekhpal failed to appear. The High Court found the matter requires consideration and adjourned the case, directing respondents to file counter-affidavit within four weeks and imposing status quo until next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case