The High Court dismissed the writ petition asserting that an unhearing remedy lies within filing a recall application before the revenue authority, rendering this writ remedy inapplicable. The petition is disposed of.
Writ petition disposed of
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 735 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shiv Poojan And 3 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Karan Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
A joint Vakalatnama of Sri Himanshu Pandey & Ashok Kumar, Advocates, has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. It may be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Himanshu Pandey learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
The petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 1.8.2019 have filed the instant writ petition.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who were the respondents before the Board of Revenue were not heard and, therefore, the order dated 1.8.2019 was an ex parte order.
If that is the case, the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of filing a recall application.
In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed and the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 PK
Shiv Poojan And 3 Others
Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad
Siddhartha Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
