Dismissed

Rao Sukhpal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023WRIC/16615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an application under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Setting aside the preliminary objection regarding alternative remedy, the bench held that an appeal lies before the Commissioner and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to file appeal before appellate court.

Rao Sukhpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189194

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16615 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rao Sukhpal Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nitin Kumar Agrawal

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

1.Heard Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nitin Kumar Agrawal, Counsel for respondent No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶7

2.The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by Up-Zila-Adhikari, Tehsil-Jalesar, District-Etah in Case No.1075 of 2022 computerized Case No.T202218210301075 (Raja Jitendra Pal Singh Vs. Anu Bansal and others) under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶8

Mr. Nitin Kumar Agrawal, Counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents raised preliminary objection that against the order impugned, remedy of appeal as provided under Section 38 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is available to the petitioners, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. They further submitted that application filed by the petitioner under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed in accordance with law as the dispute raised by petitioner by way of application under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is beyond the purview of proceeding under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that application filed by the petitioners under Section 38 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 was maintainable before respondent No.2 in view of the provisions contained under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, but respondent No.2 has failed to apply his his mind and illegally dismissed the petitioners' application as such the remedy of appeal will not come in the way of petitioners to challenge the impugned order before this Court.

¶10

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

6.There is no dispute about the fact that application filed by the petitioners under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 03.04.2023 after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶12

7.In order to appreciate the controversy, perusal of the Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant, which is as under:

¶13

"Section 34 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006:- (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (3), may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of such order, and the decision of the Commissioner shall be final "

¶14

Perusal of Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 provides that against the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, remedy is available before the appellate court. Since the impugned order has been passed after hearing the petitioners, as such, it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has been violated or order

¶15

impugned is without jurisdiction, accordingly, the instant writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶16

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal agaisnt the impugned order.

¶17

It is further provided that petitioners shall file appeal along with prayer of condonation of delay within three weeks from today before the appellate Court, which shall be entertained and disposed of on merit taking liberal view on delay condonation matter within a period of four months from the date of filing the appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 PS*

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rao Sukhpal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rao Sukhpal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Chandra Bhushan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Veerpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balakram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajnath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Premlali Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and 5 Others

Sonpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others