Single-judge High Court bank disposed of a writ petition by recording instructions regarding pending proceedings and noting the petitioner's alternative remedy under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173167
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11898 of 2022
Petitioner :- Harpal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Through Its Sec. Revenue And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kushwaha,Suresh Chandra Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Kumar Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
In pursuance to the earlier direction, personal afÏdavit has been preferred on behalf of respondent no.3 who is personally present before the court also.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel apprised with the instructions which is taken on record through which it transpired that the proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been culminated into order dated 22.6.2015, through which the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were aggrieved and challenged the same by way of instituting revision before the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed in default vide order dated 20.2.2023.
It is the specific averment made in the instructions by respondent no.3 that as and when the original file will be received from Board of Revenue the remaining proceeding under Section 116 shall be decided on its own merits. A vital fact has also been apprised through the instructions that the petitioner already executed gift deed in favour of his son on 2.8.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire grievance of the petitioner is related to respondent nos. 5 and 6 who are disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the institution of the present petition on the ground that, if, the relief sought
through the instant writ petition from respondent nos. 5 and 6, in that case the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Without interfering in the merit of the matter, instant writ petition is hereby disposed of in pursuance to the factual position mentioned in the instructions filed today and the same is taken on record, with the best of hope that immediately after receiving the original file from the Board of Revenue the remaining proceedings under Section 116 may be expedited as soon as possible by the respondent no.3, so far as the prayer and relief sought through the instant writ petition against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, the arguments raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel seems to be forceful that petitioner is having an alternative remedy for institution of the separate proceedings under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The personal appearance of Shri Rajeev Raj, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhanaura, District Amroha is hereby dispensed with. Order Date :- 28.8.2023 Rakesh
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the disturbance of possession is maintainable in light of alternative remedy.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Harpal Singh
State Of U.P Through Its Sec. Revenue And 5 Others
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
