Disposed

Kalika Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/6177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It held that the petitioner retains the right to file an appeal under Section 67(5) against the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; right to appeal under Section 67(5) affirmed.

Kalika Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8161

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6177 of 2022 Petitioner :- Kalika Prasad Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Rang Nath Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Prashant Pandey,Virendra Prakash Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 3 / Gram Sabha has been accepted by Shri Mohan Singh.

¶6

Under challenge is the order dated 22/23.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the representation which was preferred by the petitioner purportedly under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that initially he has approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 3447 of 2022 in re: Kalika Prasad Tiwari vs State of U.P. and others praying for removal of illegal encroachment. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the order dated 31.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a fresh and detailed application under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 raising his grievance before the competent authority. The competent authority was required to decide the said application in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Subsequent thereto the competent authority vide order impugned dated 22/23.07.2022 has rejected the said application on various grounds.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

¶9

application filed by the petitioner under Section 67 of the Code 2006 has been treated to be a representation and as such the petitioner is precluded from filing of an appeal.

¶10

The aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner merits outright rejection in as much as it is an application which was required to be filed by the petitioner in terms of order of this Court dated 31.05.2022 which application was in fact preferred by the petitioner which has been rejected and thus once an order has bee passed under provisions of Section 67 of the Code 2006 it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the said order, if aggrieved, by filing appropriate appeal under provisions of Section 67(5) of the Code 2006.

¶11

Considering that the petitioner has remedy of challenging the order impugned, consequently the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order impugned before appropriate court / authority in appropriate proceedings.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶13

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

Kalika Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalika Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lucknow 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

Similar cases

Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer N.E.R. Ashok Marg Lko Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. and Ors.

M/S SP Sai It Pvt. Ltd. Noida Thru Authorized Signatory Vs Mrs. Asha Rani and Anr.

M/S Deep Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd.Brahmapuri Colony Indira Nagar Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. and Another

Smt. Kiran Rastogi Vs Small Cause Court, Faizabad and Another

Smt. Shobhita Dubey Vs Alok Kumar Pathak

Deepali Garg Vs Shivam Agarwal