Disposed

Bechu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023WRIC/5075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court discharged the duty to exercise writ jurisdiction by allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks. It held that the limitation for the appeal is condoned, orders will be decided on merits within nine months, and no objection shall be raised against delay. The underlying dispute concerns dispossession proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; appeal directed to be filed within three weeks limitation condoned; appeal to be decided on merits within nine months.

Bechu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5075 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Bechu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Mani,Mahesh Kumar Dubey,Ved Prakash Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as well as Shri Ved Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel representing the private-respondent No. 3.

¶6

The proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were registered against respondent No. 3, Dwarika Singh, and initially an order was passed on 30.03.2022 directing his dispossession.

¶7

Terming the said order ex-parte and having been passed without hearing the respondent No.3, he filed a restoration application in consonance with the provisions of section 209 (h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was allowed and the case was restored to its original number and status, whereafter the matter proceeded, in which respondent No. 3 filed objections, however, it appears from perusal of the order dated 02.09.2022 that after filing of said objections, he absented himself and did not argue the matter.

¶8

Under such circumstances, the Assistant Collector concerned passed the order dated 02.09.2022 keeping the previous order dated 30.03.2022 as intact and respondent No.3 was directed to be dispossessed and further damages were imposed upon him.

¶9

Respondent No. 3 again terming the order dated 02.09.2022 as exparte, filed, a review application, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 08.12.2022, whereby the notice 49 Ga issued under section 67 of the Code, has been withdrawn and the previous orders of dispossession, which were passed on 30.03.2022 and 02.09.2022 have been set aside.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that review application filed by respondent No. 3 was not maintainable and he should have file appeal against the order dated 02.09.2022.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No.3 did not file review application, rather, as he was not heard in the matter, he had filed a recall application on 14.09.2022, which has been allowed by the order impugned dated 08.12.2022.

¶12

Be that as it may, this Court finds that since the proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been dropped against respondent No. 3 by the order dated 08.12.2022, in which there is a detailed discussion of holding various proceedings including spot inspection etc., the order is assailable in appeal before the Collector under section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal.

¶13

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that period of limitation for filing appeal has been prescribed as 30 days, which has expired in the month of January, 2023, and therefore, the petitioner cannot avail alternative remedy.

¶14

Considering the above noted facts and circumstances, this writ petition is being disposed of with the following terms:

¶15

(i) In case, the petitioner files an appeal against the order dated 08.09.2022 within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be heard and decided on merits within a period of nine months from the date of its registration, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶16

(ii) No objection shall be raised with regard to delay, which has occurred in filing the appeal, as period of limitation has been condoned by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.3.2023 Sazia

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bechu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bechu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Vishwavindu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Dadhibal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Baj Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ruab Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ganga Prasad Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Badami Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others