Partly allowed

Udai Bhan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023WRIC/11617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that statutory appeals were not maintainable under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code. The writ is disposed of, and petitioners are directed to file recall applications within three weeks with delay condoned under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Statutory appeals dismissed as not maintainable. Directions to file recall applications within three weeks with delay condoned under Art. 226.

Udai Bhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11617 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Udai Bhan And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sudhir Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harishchandra Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent - Gaon Sabha.

¶6

By identical orders dated 27.06.2022, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were decided against the petitioners. The said orders indicate that though the petitioners filed objections on merit, thereafter they did not appear at the time of hearing of the matter and the counsel for the State was heard ex parte . Accordingly, the petitioners were found to be encroachers over public Rasta and apart from directing their dispossession, damages were imposed upon them.

¶7

The petitioners filed separate appeals under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Collector which have been dismissed by the order dated 16.02.2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' residential houses are constructed on the spot for last several decades and they have not encroached upon any part of the public Rasta . Necessary photographs have been annexed with this petition. He further submits that proceedings were decided in violation of Rules 66 and 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which point was raised in appeal but has not been considered by the appellate court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submit that the memo of appeal was in the nature of a restoration application and in view of bar contained under Section 209 (h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the appeals were not maintainable.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that though non-maintainability of the appeals was taken as a ground of defence before the appellate court, the appeals have been

¶11

dismissed on merit. I also find that the appeals were not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 209 (h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶12

In view of the fact that initial orders were passed ex parte after the petitioners had filed detailed objection which include the copies of certain revenue records as well as proceedings decided in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners' case should be considered but on account of absence on the date of hearing, the matter has been decided ex parte.

¶13

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶14

(i) The statutory appeals being not maintainable in view of Section 209 (h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 render infructuous and the appeals filed by the petitioners are dismissed as not maintainable.

¶15

(ii) The petitioners have alternative remedy of filing recall applications against the order dated 27.06.2022.

¶16

(iii) Since, limitation of filing the recall applications has expired, on account of institution of appeals, it is provided that petitioners' recall applications are filed within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be registered.

¶17

(iv) The delay in filing the recall applications is being condoned by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

¶18

(v) The recall applications shall be considered on their own merits and shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of their registration.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Atul

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Udai Bhan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udai Bhan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudev Prasad Vs Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and 6 Others

Vinay Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Ishtakar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others