Allahabad HC Flags Two Contradictory Orders by Same SDO on Same Day, Demands Personal Affidavit from Principal Secretary Revenue

Justice Kshitij Shailendra found the Deoria Sub-Divisional Officer may have prepared two opposite orders in the same revenue case to favour one party over another, and rejected the State’s inquiry report as wholly inadequate.

The Allahabad High Court on 20 July 2026 expressed serious displeasure at the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh government handled a case in which two final orders — one allowing a litigant’s claim and one dismissing it — were passed on the same date, in the same revenue file, by the same Sub-Divisional Officer at Deoria. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, sitting singly, rejected the State’s inquiry report as insufficient and directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of U.P. to file a personal affidavit disclosing all departmental proceedings taken so far and the government’s position in terms of its stated zero-tolerance policy against corruption.

The case originated as a writ petition by Shiv Narayan Tiwari seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Collector, District Deoria to inspect the file of Case No. 8403 of 2022 (Computerised Case No. T202205200108403), a proceeding under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, concerning the correction of revenue entries.

Two Orders, One Date, Opposite Outcomes

At the centre of the dispute are two orders, both dated 17 August 2023, purportedly passed in the same revenue case by Sri Yogesh Kumar Gaur, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoria Sadar. One order accepted the petitioner’s claim and directed correction of entries. The second order dismissed the petitioner’s case on merits, recording a finding that there was no justification to correct entries. Both orders relate to the same file.

One version — a photostat copy downloaded from the Revenue Court Management System (RCMS) portal of the Board of Revenue — bore no signature. The other was a certified copy of the order of the same date. The court found the two documents to be “exactly in contrast to each other.”

The Sub-Divisional Officer’s explanation, furnished through instructions filed by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, was that one order which could not be signed was erroneously uploaded on the RCMS portal and later deleted, after which the signed order of the same date was released. The court did not accept this as a complete explanation.

What the Court Said in Its January 2024 Order

On 5 January 2024, Justice Shailendra had taken note of the State’s initial position, which attributed the upload of the unsigned order to the Revenue Ahalmad. The court observed that no order can be uploaded on or deleted from the RCMS portal without the directions or knowledge of the officer concerned. It held that neither a Reader of the court nor a Revenue Ahalmad has any role in pronouncing two different orders on merits in the same case — their duties are confined to ministerial and administrative work, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Accordingly, the court directed in January 2024 that Sri Yogesh Kumar Gaur be called upon to submit his written defence before the Collector by 31 January 2024. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) was to submit a report within the same period. The Collector was then to prepare an independent report by the end of February 2024 and forward it to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Lucknow. The Principal Secretary was directed to set up a high-level inquiry and complete it strictly in accordance with law by the end of May 2024, with a copy of the inquiry report to be placed before the court.

The Inquiry Report and Its Shortcomings

A counter affidavit was subsequently filed on behalf of the State government annexing an inquiry report dated 28 June 2024. The report found that the Bench Secretary, Sri Chandra Bhan Chaurasia, was guilty of uploading the unsigned order. As regards Sri Yogesh Kumar Gaur, the report concluded that he was negligent in ensuring the unsigned order was not uploaded in place of the signed order and recommended initiation of appropriate proceedings against him. The report also noted that a system was being developed for digital signing and timely uploading of orders by Presiding Officers.

The court found this treatment of the matter entirely inadequate. Justice Shailendra pointed out that neither the Bench Secretary nor the Stenographer has any role in the contents of an order — that is, whether a case has been allowed or dismissed. Their function is to finalise what has been dictated by the officer. The critical question — how two orders operating exactly in contrast to each other came to be prepared — remained wholly unexplained.

The court observed that even accepting the narrative that an unsigned order was first uploaded and then replaced by a signed one, the two orders are not merely different drafts or versions; they reach opposite conclusions on merits. One favours the litigant and the other goes against him. This admitted fact, the court held, “reflects that there is something more than a sheer negligence.” The court characterised it as a case where two orders were prepared by the officer so as to advance favour to one party and disfavour to the other.

State’s Treatment of the Matter Draws Judicial Displeasure

Justice Shailendra recorded the court’s “serious displeasure and anguish” at the manner in which the State government handled the matter. The court noted that the State initially blamed the Revenue Ahalmad, then shifted focus to the Bench Secretary as the primary guilty party, while treating the Sub-Divisional Officer’s role as mere negligence warranting only unspecified departmental proceedings. The nature of the departmental proceedings recommended against Sri Yogesh Kumar Gaur was not disclosed in the inquiry report.

The court found that treating the episode as negligence on the part of the officer — and as a more serious lapse only on the part of the Bench Secretary in uploading an unsigned order — did not grapple with the fundamental problem: two substantively contradictory orders on merits were prepared in the same case on the same date.

The court also noted that as of the date of the hearing, what had transpired after 28 June 2024 was not on record. Learned Standing Counsel sought time to bring those proceedings on record, but the court proceeded to record its dissatisfaction and issue further directions.

Order

Justice Kshitij Shailendra directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of U.P. to file a personal affidavit before the court. The affidavit must annex all departmental proceedings held in the matter up to the date of filing and must clearly set out the government’s stand in terms of its zero-tolerance policy against corruption. The court stated that further orders shall be passed based on what is brought on record.

The matter has been listed for 24 August 2026 at 2:00 PM.