Dismissed

Smt. Anju Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023WRIC/7268/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging rejection of an application under the U.P. Revenue Code. The court permitted the petitioner to file a revision before the Board of Revenue, condoning the limitation delay and mandating disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file revision before the Board of Revenue; delay condoned; revision must be disposed within six months.

Smt. Anju Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7268 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Anju Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nar Singh Narayan Verma,Manvendra Nath Singh,U.S. Verma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2022 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer concerned rejected the petitioner's application under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The second order impugned is dated 16.11.2022 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner concerned.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various submissions on merits of the case.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 5 have raised objections that as per section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order of the Commissioner passed in appeal shall, subject to the provisions of section 210 of the Code, be final. Therefore submission is that the petitioner has a remedy of filing revision before the Board of Revenue under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 30 days' period of limitation has been prescribed for filing the said revision, which period has expired and, therefore, the petitioner cannot file a revision.

¶11

Considering the facts of the case, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail remedy of filing revision before the Board of Revenue.

¶12

In case, the revision is filed within a period of three weeks , the same shall be registered and shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its registration, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶13

The Board of Revenue shall not treat the revision as barred by limitation as the delay in filing the revision has been condoned by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.4.2023 Sazia

¶15

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

Smt. Anju Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anju Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Bhaiya Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Smt. Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Jitendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kailash Nath Mishra Vs Jay Prakash Mishra and 42 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shyauraj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others