Disposed

Dev Sharma and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022WRIC/4585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy via revision, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Board of Revenue to consider any stays and dispose of the revision within stipulated timeframes without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the Board of Revenue to consider stay applications expeditiously and dispose of the revision within 5 months.

Dev Sharma and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4585 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Dev Sharma And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishesh Rajvanshi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra,Narayan Dutt Shukla,Ram Lakhan Deobanshi,Sunil Kumar Singh,Vivek Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.C. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.D. Shukla, for intervenors, the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

Sri R.C. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the intervenors raised a preliminary objection that against the order impugned dated 27.11.2021 (Annexure -13 to the writ petition), the petitioners have an alternative / efficacious remedy to file a revision before the competent court.

¶7

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court while deciding the earlier Writ Petition No.15760 of 2003, filed by petitioners, vide order dated 29.5.2011, has allowed the writ petition and observation was made that Additional Collector shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders but impugned order dated 27.11.2021 has been arbitrarily passed, hence the petitioners filed the instant petition without filing revision before the courts below.

¶8

Since the impugned order dated 27.11.2011 has been passed by Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), hence petitioners have an alternative remedy to challenge the same in revision.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Board of Revenue that in case the petitioners file a revision along with a stay application before him, the stay application shall be considered and decided, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one

¶10

month from the date of filing of the same, and next the entire revision shall be disposed of, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 5 months, from the date of the disposal of the stay application, after affording opportunities to the parties concerned, in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 16.9.2022/C.Prakash

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDRA PRAKASH Date: 2022.09.16 16:57:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dev Sharma and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Sharma and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Bechu and 4 Others Vs Board of Revenue and 12 Others

Karamat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lallan Prasad Yadav Vs the State of U.P. and 17 Others

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 9 Others