Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024/6026/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, sitting as a High Court in Writ, dismissed a petition at the admission stage. The court held that the petitioner had an alternate remedy to move an application to set aside the ex-parte order under the first proviso to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, or seek revision under Section 210.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed at the admission stage on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.

Santosh Kumar Singh and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50994

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6026 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent. Sri Anniruddh Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing under the authority of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh for the respondent no.3.

¶7

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the State respondent that the order impugned dated 24.06.2024 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, in exercise of power under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby while entertaining the application of demarcation an interim protection has been granted directing the parties to maintain status quo.

¶8

It is urged that the said order is appealable in terms of Section 209 and even otherwise the petitioners still has remedy by invoking the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 210 of the Code, 2006. The counsel for the petitioners had sought time to respond to the said query and today it has been urged that the petitioners do not have any alternate remedy since in terms of Section 24 of the Code, 2006, only against the final order, an appeal is contemplated under Section 24(4) of Code, 2006. He further submits that Section 209(d) talks about grant or refusal for an application for injunction whereas (f) of Section 209 of the Code talks about where such order or decree is of interim nature and in such circumstances, it is stated that the forum of appeal in terms of Section 209 of the Code, 2006 is also not available to the petitioners. He has further submitted that in so far as Section 210 of the Code is concerned i.e. also not applicable for the reason that the word used in the said Section 210 relates to any suit or proceedings decided by the subordinate revenue court refers to a final order which has not been passed. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the revision is also not available to the petitioners.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶10

material on record. It is not disputed that the proceedings have been initiated under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, wherein an interim protection has been granted. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners. What the petitioners have missed is the first proviso appended to Section 209 of the Code, 2006 and for ready reference it reads as under:-

¶11

"Provided that any party aggrieved by order passed ex-parte or by default, may move application for setting aside such order within a period of thirty days from the date of the order."

¶12

He could also not dispute the fact that in light of first proviso since the order is exparte, he has a remedy of making an application for recall.

¶13

Be that as it may, in terms of Section 210 of the Code, 2006, a revision is also contemplated and the reasoning given by the petitioners is not in consonance with the law. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived.

¶14

This Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is dismissed at the admission stage on the ground of availability alternate remedy leaving it open for the petitioners to decide which remedy he wishes to pursue.

¶15

It is also made clear that the petition has been dismissed solely on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and not on merits.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Harshita

¶17

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

Santosh Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya and 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

Ambika Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Smt. Shail Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Roop Narayan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer Unnao and 7 Others

Executive Engineer, Provincial P.W.D., Orai, Jalaun vs M/S Shanti Construction Partnership Firm Registered Under Indian Partnership Act

C/M Ram Dular Ram Bahal Maurya Siksha Prasar Samiti, Thru. Manager Namely Prem Prakash Maurya vs Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Ayodhya and 3 Others

Mohammad Bashshar vs Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs C.C.S.I Lko. Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector