In a matter under Article 227, the Court dismissed a petition filed by Imran Farooqui against orders under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of revision under Section 210 of the same Code.
The petition was dismissed on account of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63555
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4386 of 2024
Petitioner :- Imran Farooqui
Respondent :- Commissioner, Ayodhya Zone, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amiruddin Khan,Shitla Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Shubhranshu Verma
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.9. Sri Surya Prakash Singh appearing under the authority of Sri Subhranshu Verma learned counsel who has filed his caveat on behalf of respondent no.5 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the proceedings arising out of Section 24 of the U.P. Revene Code, 2006, the said proceedings came to be dismissed, against which the present petitioner had filed an appeal before the respondent no.1 and the said appeal has also been dismissed on 08.08.2024. As a result, the said order are amenable to revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006 hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the aforesaid submissions has submitted that the order passed by the lower appellate court is incorrect and there is patent illegality and he could not dispute that he has statutory remedy provided under Section 210 of the Code, 2006.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner has a statutory remedy available in terms of Code, 2006 this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the revisional court and in case, if the same is done, the same shall be considered by the revisional court on its own merits as this Court has not examined the plea of either of the parties on merit.
Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Harshita
Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition is maintainable when the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition while an alternative statutory remedy exists.
Imran Farooqui
Commissioner, Ayodhya Zone
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
