NOMINAL INDEX

Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661

Seema Ray and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662

Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663

Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664

Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665

Arvind Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666

Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667

Alakh Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668

Pradeep Kumar Singh and 35 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669

Yogendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670

Shobhit Kashayap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Administrative Reform Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671

Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672

Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673

Neha Rao v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674

Moni Corpus vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675

Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676

Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677

Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679

Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680

Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681

Ganesh Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682

Jeetu Soni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683

Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684

Pooja Devi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685

2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686

State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687

Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688

Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689

Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

Yadu Sugar Limited v. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691

Neeraj Maheshwari vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692

L v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693

Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

Bhaiya Lal Raidas vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695

Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697

Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698

Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699

Junaid Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700

Raisi Begum and 2 others v. Javed Anwar and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701

Imran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Codeine Cough Syrup Within Permitted Quantity Attracts NDPS Act If Stocked Or Sold For Intoxication: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661

The Allahabad High Court has held that codeine-based cough syrup carrying codeine within the permitted limit is not a narcotic drug so long as it is sold or transported for medicinal use, but that the moment it is stocked, sold or transported to be used as an intoxicant, the exemption is lost and it becomes a codeine preparation attracting the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Public Holiday Preventing Joining On Due Date Can't Postpone Accrual Of First Increment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Seema Ray and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment stood validly made and the appointee could take charge only on the next working day because the intervening day was a public holiday, the holiday cannot by itself postpone the accrual of a service benefit otherwise due to him.

Civil Court Can't Determine Agricultural Land Boundary Based On Advocate Commissioner's Report: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the real controversy in a suit for injunction is the boundary between two adjoining agricultural holdings, the Civil Court cannot settle that boundary on a map prepared by an Advocate Commissioner.

It held that Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides a statutory mechanism of survey and demarcation before the competent Revenue Authority.

Authority Sanctioning Building Plan Can't Decide Private Title Dispute: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Map Sanction

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664

The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority deciding an application for sanction of a building map has no jurisdiction to hold that ownership of the land is disputed, except where the land belongs to the government or the Gaon Sabha or is the subject matter of proceedings. It held that where the dispute is private, the only question is whether an injunction is in force.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,

“..the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the ownership of the property is disputed except if the land is either belongs to government of Gaon Sabha or subject matter of any proceedings and in case there is a private dispute, only consideration would be whether there is an order of injunction”

MV Act | Claim Petition Can't Be Dismissed At Final Stage For Want Of Territorial Jurisdiction Without Any Prejudice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot dismiss a claim petition at the close of a full trial merely on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, where none of the opposite parties has shown that it suffered any prejudice from the case being tried there.

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 leaves the choice of forum to the claimant. The claim may go to the Tribunal for the area where the accident occurred, to the Tribunal where the claimant resides or carries on business, or to the Tribunal where the defendant resides.

Advocate, Family Received ₹23L+ Across Cases; Allahabad High Court Orders UP-Wide Inquiry Into 'Misuse' Of SC/ST Act Benefits

Case Title: Arvind Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to undertake an inquiry into the manner in which benefits under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Rules framed thereunder are claimed and disbursed, particularly in cases involving repeated claims by the same persons or their family members.

The direction was passed after a bench of Justice Santosh Rai noted that one Santosh Kumar Dohrey, an advocate by profession, and his family members had received an aggregate ₹23,36,250 in relief/financial assistance across various criminal cases.

'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Challenges India's Sovereignty; Can't Equate It With 'Allahu-Akbar', 'Jai Shri Ram': Allahabad High Court

Case title - Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667

Rejecting the bail plea of Maulana Taukir Raza Khan in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly violence case, the Allahabad High Court today observed that the slogan "Gustakh-e-Nabi Ke Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda" cannot be equated with religious slogans such as "Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar", "Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal", "Jai Shri Ram" or "Har Har Mahadev".

A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that while these slogans express respect to the concerned God or Guru, the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan was "nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the sovereignty and integrity of India" and incited people to "an arm rebellion which is punishable under the law".

Service Rendered Before Regularisation Counts Towards Pension Eligibility, Not Towards Computation Of Pension: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Alakh Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668

The Allahabad High Court has held that the service rendered by a government servant before his regularisation, whether as a seasonal, ad-hoc, work-charged or temporary employee, must be counted while determining whether he has the qualifying service required to make him eligible for pension. It held that the pension itself can be computed only on the basis of the regular service rendered by him.

The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, wherein it was clarified that previous ad-hoc or work-charged service is to be counted only towards qualifying service for pension and not towards the amount of pension payable.

Excluding Legally Unavailable Posts From Ongoing Recruitment Doesn't Amount To Changing “Rules Of Game” Midway: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Singh and 35 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669

The Allahabad High Court has held that withdrawing vacancies from a running recruitment, because those posts could not lawfully be filled under the rules named in the advertisement, does not amount to altering the “rules of the game” midway.

It held that correcting the vacancy position is different in kind from changing eligibility or selection criteria. It held that only the latter is barred by the Constitution Bench ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.

Protection Against Termination Under Section 21 UP Secondary Education Act Not Available To Ad Hoc Teachers: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Yogendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670

The Allahabad High Court has held that the protection of prior approval of the Board under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 is not available to a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis.

It held that the safeguard operates in favour of teachers regularly appointed on the recommendation of the Board, or at least regularised by following the due procedure of law, and that ad hoc teachers appointed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 stand as a separate class.

RTI Applicant Can't Directly Seek CCTV Footage Covered By Section 8(1)(g), May Approach Court/Commission: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shobhit Kashayap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Administrative Reform Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671

The Allahabad High Court has held that CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be supplied directly to the applicant when it is covered by the exception contained in Section 8(1)(g) of the Act.

It held that a Court or Commission has the power to call for such footage and to direct its preservation, and may do so once the applicant files a complaint before the appropriate forum.

Contractual Workers Engaged Under A Scheme Have No Right To Continue After Its Closure: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672

The Allahabad High Court has held that a person engaged on contract under a government scheme cannot claim a writ of mandamus for continued engagement once the employer has abandoned the scheme. It held that in the absence of any rule, regulation or government order providing for regularisation or absorption, such an engagee has no legal right on which a mandamus can rest.

The Court further held that an employer's decision whether or not to carry on with a scheme cannot be called in question in court unless the engagee shows arbitrariness or discrimination.

S.106 BNS | Landlord Not Liable For Accidental Death In Rented Premises If No Attributable Negligence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere ownership of premises cannot create vicarious criminal liability on a landlord for an accidental death unless the prosecution material discloses a legally attributable negligent act or omission on the part of the owner.

A bench Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observation while quashing the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings against a landlord in connection with the January 2025 death of a young student, an IIT Aspirant, in a bathroom where a gas geyser was installed.

Eligibility Certificate Can't Be Filed After Cut-Off Date Where Recruitment Notice Carries Negative Covenant: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Neha Rao v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a recruitment advertisement, or a notice forming part of it, contains a negative covenant fixing a cut-off date for uploading documents and stipulating that a defaulting candidate loses the right to be shortlisted, an eligibility certificate cannot be filed after that date.

It held that the distinction between existence of eligibility and proof of eligibility does not assist the candidate in such a case, and no extension or relaxation of time is permissible.

Even Genuine Parental Concern Cannot Override Major Individual's Right To Choose Life Partner: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Moni Corpus vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675

The Allahabad High Court has held that even genuine parental concern cannot override the constitutionally protected autonomy of a major individual to choose a life partner.

The Court added that the right to choose one's partner is a facet of personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Regularisation Takes Effect From Date Of Appointment Under Rules, Not Initial Ad-Hoc Appointment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676

The Allahabad High Court has held that an ad hoc employee regularised under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 cannot claim that his regularisation be treated as effective from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment or from the date on which he became eligible for regularisation.

Bigamy Strictly Prohibited: Allahabad High Court Upholds CRPF Constable's Dismissal Under 'Minor Punishments' Provision

Case Title: Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677

The Allahabad High Court has held that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force can be dismissed from service under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which is headed 'Minor punishments'.

It held that the punishments listed in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) are awardable in addition to, or in lieu of, suspension or dismissal, and are not the only punishments the provision permits.

UP Ceiling Act | Land Transfer During Pending Proceedings Is Void, Can't Be Saved By Tenure-Holder's 'Right Of Choice': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

The Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer of land made during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land is void under Section 5(8) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It held that the Prescribed Authority cannot validate such a transfer by accepting the choice exercised by the tenure-holder under Section 12-A of the Act.

Allahabad High Court Directs CAT To Expeditiously Decide Ex-IPS Amitabh Thakur's Challenge To Compulsory Retirement

Case Title - Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, to expeditiously decide ex-IPS officer Amitabh Thakur's challenge to his compulsory retirement, which has been pending before the Tribunal since 2021.

A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order while dealing with a petition filed by Thakur under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking expeditious disposal of his pending Application filed in 2021.

Revisional Authority Can't Set Aside Final Order Passed By Coordinate Revisional Authority In Separate Revision: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680

The Allahabad High Court has held that a revisional authority deciding a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has no jurisdiction to set aside a final judgment already rendered by another revisional authority of coordinate jurisdiction in a separate revision arising out of the same appellate order.

Section 219(1) of the Act allows the specified revenue authorities to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and to examine the legality or propriety of the order passed. Sub-section (2) bars a further application under the section by the same person before any other such authority.

Charge-Sheet Witnesses Must Be Examined In Presence Of Delinquent Employee, Deviation Infringes Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681

The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 requires the Inquiry Officer to record the oral evidence of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet in the presence of the charged government servant, and any deviation infringes the principles of natural justice.

It held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be given even where the delinquent employee has not specifically asked for it.

Civil Services | Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Continue After Retirement Without Governor Sanction Under Regulation 351-A: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682

The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary proceeding initiated against a government servant before his retirement cannot continue after he retires, and no punishment can be imposed on its basis, without the sanction of the Governor under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.

Regulation 351-A reserves to the Governor the right to withhold or withdraw a pension and to order recovery from a pension of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by a pensioner's misconduct or negligence during service. Departmental proceedings not instituted while the officer was on duty require the Governor's sanction.

Magistrate Can Reject Police Final Report And Summon Accused If Case Diary Discloses Prima Facie Offence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jeetu Soni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summon the accused even where the police have filed a final report concluding that no case is made out, and that in doing so he is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.

Order 39 CPC | Bar On Grant Of Final Relief At Interim Stage Is Not An Absolute Proposition Of Law: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684

The Allahabad High Court has held that the bar on granting relief at the interim stage which resembles the final relief is not an absolute proposition of law and creates no jurisdictional embargo on the grant of a temporary injunction. It held that the question turns on the facts of each case, with the prima facie case tested at a higher level.

Justice Jaspreet Singh held,

“Thus, to state as a matter of bland proposition that an interim relief which is somewhat similar to the final relief cannot be granted at all would be an incorrect enunciation of law. It was open for the Appellate Court to have discharged the injunction provided it would have considered the facts as well as the material on record and dealt with the findings recorded by the trial court.”

Order XXI CPC Not Applicable To Execution Of Eviction Orders Passed Under Section 67 UP Revenue Code: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pooja Devi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of eviction or of compensation passed under Section 67(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be executed through the long drawn procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that the Code of 2006 and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 themselves supply the machinery for enforcing such orders.

'Bunch Of Liars': Allahabad High Court Pulls Up SHO, SP Over Police Station CCTV Lapses; Orders ₹65K Compensation For Illegal Detention

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686

The Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the Station House Officer (SHO) of a Police Station in District Deoria and the concerned Superintendent of Police (SP), questioning them over the failure of the police station CCTV system and the absence of CCTV footage in a case concerning the illegal detention of 4 petitioners for 10 days.

Mere Registration Of Criminal Case Does Not Mechanically Disqualify A Candidate From Police Service: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate cannot be mechanically disqualified from appointment to the police force merely because a criminal case was registered against him.

It held that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which governs verification of the character and antecedents of State Government recruits, provides for an assessment of the candidate's suitability and does not impose a blanket ban on persons against whom a crime has been registered.

Senior Citizens Act | Tribunal Can Evict Children To Protect Elderly's Life & Limb: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can order the eviction of children or relatives from a senior citizen's property where that is expedient to protect his life and limb. It held that the power is not expressly conferred by the Act, but arises as an incident of the right to maintenance and protection.

Allotment Cancelled After 26 Years 'Total Abuse Of Process': Allahabad High Court Restores Land To Family

Case Title: Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689

The Allahabad High Court has held that an agricultural allotment made in 1987 could not be cancelled under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in proceedings started on a private complaint 26 years later, more so where the allottee had by then been recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights.

Section 198(6) of the Act fixes the outer limit for issuing a notice to show cause in such proceedings. For an allotment made before November 10, 1980, the notice must issue within seven years of that date; for one made on or after it, within five years of the allotment or lease, or up to November 10, 1987, whichever is later.

UP Police Rules | Delay In Filing Revision Against Punishment Is Condonable Under S. 5 Limitation Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

The Allahabad High Court has held that delay in filing a revision under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the Rules neither expressly exclude the Limitation Act nor create any bar against condonation of delay.

Rule 23(1) of the Rules entitles a police officer whose appeal has been rejected to apply for revision to the superior authority next above the appellate authority, within three months. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies Sections 4 to 24 of that Act, which include Section 5, the provision for condonation of delay, to limitation prescribed by a special or local law, except to the extent expressly excluded by that law.

Discriminatory Sugarcane Allocation Below Mill's Requirement Can't Be Justified By Delayed Payments: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Yadu Sugar Limited v. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691

The Allahabad High Court has held that discriminatory allocation of sugarcane below a mill's estimated requirement cannot be justified on the basis of its low drawl or alleged delay in payment of cane price, particularly where the short allocation itself contributed to the low drawl and affected the mill's ability to make payments.

It further held that sugarcane allocation should account for the fact that only about 60% of the cane supplied is ultimately available for crushing, with the remaining 40% lost to pilferage and other losses.

Defence In Written Statement Can't Be Converted Into Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Neeraj Maheshwari vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692

The Allahabad High Court has held that a defence which, if established, may defeat the plaintiff's claim cannot ordinarily be converted into a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It held that the enquiry rests on the averments in the plaint alone and pleas taken by a defendant in his written statement are not relevant to deciding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC | Limitation Must Be Decided Before Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Failure A Jurisdictional Error: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: L v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693

The Allahabad High Court has held that a court hearing an application to set aside an ex parte decree must decide the question of limitation first, and allowing an application filed 21 years late without any finding on the cause of the delay is a jurisdictional error. It held that until the delay is condoned there is no application before the court in the eye of law.

Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires a court to set aside an ex parte decree if the defendant satisfies it that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

S. 197 CrPC | Custodial Violence, Molestation Not Police's Official Duty, But Crime: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Cops

Case Title - Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of discharge applications filed by police personnel accused of repeatedly beating people in police custody and molesting women.

The Court said that such violence cannot be termed a part of police duty and can only be described as a crime.

'Wisdom Teeth, Pubic Hair Cannot Establish Girl Was Minor': Allahabad High Court Acquits Man In Kidnapping Case

Case Title - Bhaiya Lal Raidas vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 366 IPC in a 2011 kidnapping case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the absence of third molars (wisdom teeth) could not be made a basis for holding that a person had not attained 18 years. The court added that the mere presence of axillary and pubic hair could not lead to an inference that the same were not fully developed.

Independent Title Claim Doesn't Make Person Necessary Party In Small Causes Eviction Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

The Allahabad High Court has held that a third person asserting an independent title over a rented property does not become a necessary or proper party to an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court only because that title clashes with the landlord's.

It held that impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to carry a separate title dispute into a suit limited to the landlord-tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction.

Bar Association Membership Disputes Private In Nature, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697

The Allahabad High Court has held that Bar Association membership disputes are private in nature and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court sadi that disputes concerning membership, suspension or debarment of members do not involve any public law element.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging his 1-year debarment from the membership of the Central Bar Association, Tehsil Gola Gokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

UP Govt Persistent In Using 'Goondas Act' As A 'Tool Of Oppression': Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698

The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government's use of the Goondas Act, observing that numerous cases before the Court indicate that the State is "persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression".

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while quashing orders passed against a Gonda resident, declaring him a 'Goonda' under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and externing him from Gonda district for six months.

RTE Act | Assistant Teacher's Appointment Without TET Saved If Qualification Acquired Before 31.03.2015 Deadline: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699

The Allahabad High Court has held that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher who did not possess the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification at the time of appointment is saved where the teacher clears the TET before 31.03.2015, the time limit available under the first proviso to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the State's Government Order dated 05.12.2012.

Regular FSSAI License Must For Large-Scale Slaughterhouse, Registration Certificate Not Enough: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Junaid Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700

The Allahabad High Court has held that a regular license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is required for a large-scale slaughterhouse operating beyond the prescribed capacity for a 'petty food business' and that a mere registration certificate cannot authorize such activity.

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that the Fundamental right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not dispense with a valid licensing requirement imposed in the interest of food safety and public health.

Article 227 Petition Maintainable Against Small Causes Court's Refusal To Stay Suit Under Section 10 CPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Smt Raisi Begum and 2 others v. Javed Anwar and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of a suit pending before a Court of Small Causes, does not constitute a “case decided” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

UP Municipalities Act | Nagar Panchayat Has Authority To License Cattle Markets Even On Private Land: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Imran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Nagar Panchayat has the authority to licence and regulate cattle markets within its local limits under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, while dismissing a challenge to the license granted for holding a cattle market.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a petition challenging orders dated December 2025 and March 2026, which authorized respondent no. 7 to hold a cattle market at a place in Mahavan town, Mathura district on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK

Saharanpur Mosque Demolition | High Court Seeks UP Govt's Reply On Plea Against Eviction, Stays ₹6.41 Crore Recovery Damages

The Allahabad High Court has sought the State government's response to a petition challenging the eviction and demolition of a mosque in Saharanpur. Meanwhile, the Court has stayed the recovery of ₹6.41 crore in damages imposed by the City Magistrate, Saharanpur.

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed the State to file its counter-affidavit within 3 weeks. 1 week thereafter was granted to the petitioner for filing a rejoinder. The matter has been listed for October 12, 2026.