Arjun Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52390

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 536 of 2024

Petitioner :- Arjun Kumar Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Dev Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Sachindra Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vishnu Dev Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Sachindra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶7

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved from the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two separate proceedings were going on, one under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950') whereas the other was in proceedings initiated under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006').

¶10

It is further urged that being aggrieved against the order passed under Section 123 of the Act of 1950 as well as the order passed under Section 67-A of the Code, 2006, the petitioner filed one single revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya.

¶11

An objection was taken that since two separate orders had been passed in two separate proceedings, accordingly, one revision was not maintainable, however, instead of affording an opportunity to correct the said mistake, the revisional Court by means of the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 dismissed the revision.

¶12

It is further submitted that while dismissing the revision, the revisional Court noticed that the petition also suffered from vice of non-joinder of necessary parties but these were all technical defects and nonetheless curable. It would have been a different situation where time would have been granted to the petitioner to cure the defects and in case if it was not done perhaps the

¶13

revisional Court would then be justified in rejecting the revision. In this view of the matter where no opportunity was given, thus it is urged that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶14

Learned counsel for the private-respondents as well as learned standing counsel attempted to support the order, but could not dispute the fact that the order passed by the revisional Court is purely technical in nature. If the revisional Court came to the conclusion that two orders could not have been assailed in one revision and that the revision also suffered from the vice of nonjoinder of necessary parties then it would have been appropriate course to direct the revisionist to cure the said defects and in case if it was not done, it was open for the revisional Court to have considered the impact of assailing the said orders in one revision including the impact of non-joinder of parties and could have dismissed it but without affording an opportunity to cure the defects which does not go to the roots of the jurisdiction rather is merely a defect relating to the form of revision and not affecting its substance.

¶15

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶16

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2023 is set aside. The revision before the Additional Commissioner shall stand restored. It shall be open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application correcting the array of the parties in the pending revision and insofar as the challenge to two orders in one revision is concerned, the petitioner will be at liberty of pressing his revision which is there before the Additional Commissioner insofar as one order is concerned and he will be at liberty to file another revision assailing the other order so that both the revisions can be clubbed together and be heard as they are relating to the same dispute in between the same parties.

¶17

The parties shall appear before the revisional Court on 12.08.2024 and the revisional Court shall provide reasonable time to the revisionist to correct and cure the aforesaid defects and thereafter take up the matter as expeditiously as possible on merits. In case, if any of the parties do not cooperate, it will be open for the revisional Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The costs are made easy.

¶19

Order Date :- 31.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arjun Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rooplal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Govind Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Others

Girija Dayal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate F and R and Another

Anil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.