Allahabad HC Freezes State's Possession of Sitapur School Land Wrongly Classified as Nazool

The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has directed the State not to alter land already seized from a 150-year-old Methodist school, pending a hearing on whether the property was wrongly described as Nazool in government records.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, on 12 July 2026 placed an interim status-quo restriction on the State Government over a 3.562-hectare plot in Sitapur that has housed the Methodist Mission Girls Junior High School for roughly 150 years. The bench was specially constituted on urgency, after counsel flagged an imminent demolition threat. The State had already taken physical possession of a portion of the land on 10 July 2024 through the Nagar Palika Parishad Sitapur, pursuant to an order by the District Magistrate, Sitapur dated 24 June 2026. The court's immediate concern was that any further change to the character of the seized land before the next hearing would make relief ineffective.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioners — the school and another party — approached the Lucknow Bench by way of Writ-C No. 7284 of 2026. Their case, as placed by Sri Rohit Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners, is that the land situated in Village Chavani Kadim, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur, measuring 3.562 hectares, was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in 1862. It then passed through successive predecessors and ultimately came to the present petitioners, who have been running an educational institution on it.

The grievance is that the State Government has wrongly described this land as Nazool property in its revenue records. Nazool land generally refers to property that has escheated to or vested in the State. The petitioners contend the classification is erroneous, given the documented chain of private purchase dating to 1862, and that acting on that classification the District Magistrate passed the impugned order of 24 June 2026, which triggered demolition activity and the eventual takeover of a portion of the premises by the Nagar Palika Parishad Sitapur on 10 July 2024.

Counsel also brought to the bench's notice that a civil suit — Suit No. 34 of 2017 — is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur regarding a portion of the disputed property. However, this fact had not been mentioned in the writ petition as filed, because, as Tripathi fairly conceded, the petition was drafted and filed in considerable urgency and certain facts were inadvertently left out.

The State's Position on the Impugned Order

Sri Nishant Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, submitted that the District Magistrate's order of 24 June 2026 did not touch the area of the disputed land on which the school's educational activities and the Church are being conducted. The State's case is that only other areas — separately described in the impugned order itself — were reclaimed, and that demolition activity was confined to those portions, after which possession was handed over to the Nagar Palika Parishad Sitapur on 10 July 2024.

The State's position, therefore, is that the educational functioning of the institution has not been disrupted by the actions taken so far. The bench took note of this submission but did not, at this interim stage, record any finding on whether the State's description of the affected areas is accurate.

Why the Bench Intervened Immediately

Two facts weighed with the Division Bench in fashioning an immediate order. First, the State had already secured physical possession of a portion of the land. With possession already transferred to the Nagar Palika Parishad, the real risk was not demolition of the school building — which the State said it had avoided — but a change in the nature or use of the possessed portion before the court could properly examine the matter. Second, the existence of a pending civil suit (Suit No. 34 of 2017) added a layer of complexity; any irrevocable alteration of the land's character could pre-empt the civil court's adjudication as well.

The bench also took seriously the claim that the institution has existed on the land for approximately 150 years and that the land purchase predates the classification now relied upon by the State. These are factual questions requiring fuller examination, and an interim freeze on altering the possessed land's nature was the least disruptive way to preserve the position pending that examination.

The court directed the office of the Chief Standing Counsel to communicate the order to the State authorities forthwith, without waiting for a certified copy to be issued — a step that signals the bench's recognition that delay in communication could itself defeat the interim protection.

Outcome

The Division Bench passed the following directions on 12 July 2026:

• The matter is listed on 20 July 2026 in the top-ten cases.
• The State Government shall not change the nature of the portion of the disputed land of which it has already taken possession.
• All parties are directed to maintain status quo over the said land until the next date of listing.
• The office of the Chief Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to State authorities immediately, without awaiting a certified copy.