Quashed

Prakhyat Infra Estate L.L.P. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2018WRIB/4283/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed an order by the Board of Revenue admitting a revision and directing status quo. The court held the order unsustainable as it failed to adjudicate the maintainability of the revision or record reasons for the injunction, repeating a previous error.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.5.2018 was quashed and the matter remitted to the Board of Revenue to decide afresh.

Prakhyat Infra Estate L.L.P. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4283 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Prakhyat Infra Estate L.L.P. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Prabodh Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri A.P. Dubey for respondent No. 3. With their consent, the instant petition is being decided finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit and also without issuing notices to respondent Nos. 5 to 8 having regard to the fact that the order impugned is in favour of respondent No. 3, who is already represented before this Court.

¶6

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue admitting a revision filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and directing the parties to maintain status quo, in the meantime.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that on 5.4.2018, an order in identical terms was passed by the Board of Revenue admitting the revision and directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said order was subjected to challenge before this Court by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2018. The challenge was on the ground that the revision was not maintainable and that order of status quo was passed without recording any reason. This Court having regard to the fact that the order of status quo was passed without recording any reason, set-aside the order impugned in the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the Board of Revenue to pass a fresh order vide its order dated 16.4.2018. It is urged that the same mistake has been repeated by the Board of Revenue, while passing the impugned order. The revision has been admitted but without deciding the issue as to whether revision was maintainable or not and also without recording any reason for grant of injunction.

¶8

Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 is not in a position to dispute that the impugned order does not contain any adjudication as to the maintainability of the revision nor records any reason for grant of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo.

¶9

In view of the above, the impugned order can not be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue to decide the matter afresh, having regard to the observations made in the order dated 16.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2018.

¶10

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶11

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 25.6.2018 AM/-

Prakhyat Infra Estate L.L.P. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakhyat Infra Estate L.L.P. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Madarsa Jamiya Arbiya Tanveerul Uloom Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Maurya Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Malti Devi Vs Court of Civil Judge and 3 Others

Heerakali Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Smt. Sangeeta and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others