Allowed

Smt. Aneeta Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024/10081/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the petition setting aside a non-speaking order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as not maintainable without stating grounds or indicating jurisdictional error.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.07.2024 setting aside; respondent directed to decide petitioner's application complying with Section 80 rules.

Smt. Aneeta Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. District… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78958

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10081 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Aneeta Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suman Lata Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the respondent no.4 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected on the ground of being not maintainable.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has purchased the property comprising of Plot No.694 by means of registered sale deed dated 08.07.2022.

¶9

It is further submitted that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 80 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, on the strength of the two sale deeds and sought the leave of the authority for using the said plots for purposes other than agriculture.

¶10

It is urged that by means of impugned order dated 12.07.2024, the application has been rejected as not maintainable. However, there is no reason indicated nor any provisions have been indicated under which the said application could be rejected as being not maintainable.

¶11

It is submitted that the impugned order apart from being legally erroneous is also non speaking, hence the same deserves to be set aside.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection that against the said order, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision and as such the petition may not be entertained. It has further been urged that in the impugned order, it has been stated that the land of which declaration in terms of Section 80 has

¶13

been refused is in light of the provisions contained under Section 80 (7) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and as such there is no error on the face of the record which may persuade the Court to entertain the petition, accordingly the petition be dismissed.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that it is true that the petitioner has remedy of filing a revision. However, at the same time, it is also to be seen that in case if the order is patently without jurisdiction then the bar of alternate remedy is not an impediment for this Court to exercise its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

At this stage, it will be gainful to notice the provision as cited by the learned Standing Counsel and thus Section 80 (7) is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶16

"7. No declaration under this section shall be made by the sub- divisional officer, if he is satisfied that the land or part thereof is being used or is proposed to be used for a purpose which is likely to cause a public nuisance or to affect adversely public order, public health, safety or convenience or which is against the uses proposed in the master plant."

¶17

Having taken a glance at the aforesaid provision it will reveal that it only vests power with the authority to refuse a declaration provided that there is any impediment available in law on which such an authority on refuse the declaration. It is one thing to say that after consideration of the application the Authority may find some legal impediment or ground upon which the declaration may be refused and the application can be dismissed. However, it is all together different to state that an application is not maintainable.

¶18

It is in this context, if the aforesaid order is examined it would reveal that there is no finding given by the authority that the application which has been moved by the petitioner indicates that the petitioner is proposing to involve itself in any activities which may be hit by any of the prohibitions mentioned in sub-section (7) of Section 80.

¶19

Reliance has been placed by the learned Standing Counsel on the last portion of the aforesaid sub-section (7) of Section 80 that the application is contrary to the use as mentioned in the master plan. The aforesaid submission also is misconceived for the reason that it has not been mentioned as to the purpose for which the land in question has been shown in the master plan with a particular use coupled with the fact that there is nothing to indicate that the purpose for which the petitioner proposes to use her land is against the user as mentioned in the master plan.

¶20

Moreover, the aforesaid submission is merely an attempt to improve the order. However, no such material was available with the respondent when the aforesaid order had been passed and nevertheless even if that reasoning is accepted (though not material) yet it can only be for the limited purpose of refusing an application but it can not be said that the said application is not maintainable.

¶21

For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and against the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of 2006, consequently the order is set aside. The respondent no.4 shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner after affording a full opportunity as well as complying with the requisite provisions as provided in Section 80 and the corresponding rules made under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

¶22

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed .

¶23

O rder Date :- 27.11.2024 Asheesh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Aneeta Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aneeta Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Priya Kant @ Priya Kant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Shiv Raj Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Momina Vs the Learned Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Patti, Pratapgarh and Others

Vinod Kumar Tiwari vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Bal Govind vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Jang Bahadur and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others