Disposed

Jhuri v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023WRIC/8829/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging an ex-parte recovery citation and dispossession order under the U.P. Revenue Code-2006. It directed the petitioner to file a recall application within two weeks, condoning delay, and to pursue stay applications, while mandating disposal of applications within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file recall application under Section 209(h) within two weeks and stay application; delay condoned; applications to be decided within two months.

Jhuri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8829 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Jhuri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Gaon Sabha.

¶6

The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 23.12.2022 issued by the respondent no.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil Padrauna, District-Kushi Nagar.

¶7

It is contended that without ensuring service of notice upon the petitioner, by an ex-parte order dated 07.11.2022, the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short 'the Code-2006') were decided directing dispossession of the petitioner from the property and also imposing damages to the tune of Rs.1,04,000/-. It is further contended that challenging the order dated 07.11.2022, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Kushinagar alongwith stay application and no interim order has been granted in the appeal but only notices have been issued to the concerned parties on 02.01.2023. Further contention is that on the one hand, the appellate court has not granted any interim order, on the other hand, the respondents have issued the recovery citation for recovery of the damages imposed vide order dated 07.11.2022.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that, in case, the petitioner alleges that order dated 07.11.2022 is an ex-parte order and that he was neither served with the notice nor he was heard, appeal preferred by him is not maintainable in view of bar under Section 209 (h) of the Code-2006. He, therefore, submits that the remedy of moving recall application is available to the petitioner and no direction can be issued in an appeal which is not maintainable.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first proviso to Section 209 of the Code-2006 prescribes period of limitation of 30 days for moving restoration application which has expired and, therefore, petitioner stands nowhere.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, having heard learned counsel for the parties and also the mandate of law contained under Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 wherein it has been clearly provided that in all the summary proceedings, principles of natural justice shall be followed as dealt with by this Court in its recent decision in the case of Leelu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 97, this writ petition is being disposed off in the following terms:-

¶11

(1). The petitioner may not press his appeal by moving appropriate application without any delay.

¶12

(2). The petitioner is also permitted to file recall application in terms of Section 209 (h) of the Code-2006 read with Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules-2016 and any other provision that may be available under the law.

¶13

(3). In case, such an application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the court concerned on its own merits and shall not be rejected on the ground of delay which has been condoned by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and granting benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶14

(4). The petitioner may also move appropriate stay application alongwith restoration application which shall be given due consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶15

(5). The aforesaid applications shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of their submission.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Jyotsana

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jhuri v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhuri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samim Bano Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kalimum Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Aslam Jamal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Udal Singh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others