Dismissed

Nadeem Akhtar Kidwai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 22 Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024/6709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The petitioner challenged an order under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but had an alternative appeal. The Court clarified it did not examine the merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed without examining the merits of the case on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedies.

Nadeem Akhtar Kidwai Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53756

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6709 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nadeem Akhtar Kidwai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 22 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notices on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel has received notices on behalf of respondent-Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by respondent no.3 in proceedings initiated under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that private respondent by taking recourse to fraud and without impleading the petitioner has been able to get the order dated 10.06.2024 passed.

¶9

A specific objection has been raised by the learned Standing counsel that against the impugned order the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 24 (5) of the Code, 2006.

¶10

It has further been submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved from the order dated 10.06.2024 has also moved an application for recall before the court concerned and in such circumstances the instant petition is not maintainable.

¶11

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding availability of the statutory remedy of appeal as well as the application for recall moved by the petitioner, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the authorities were hell bent upon getting the order of demarcation executed. In such circumstances, the petitioner

¶13

had moved an application of recall. He does not dispute that his application for recall is pending but submits that it has yet not been registered, coupled with the fact that he also does not dispute that there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal/revision.

¶14

In that view of the matter this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is dismissed solely on the ground of availability of alternate statutory remedy. It shall be open for the petitioner to avail either of the remedy which is available to him in accordance with law.

¶15

It is also made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the petition is dismissed solely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Harshita

¶17

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

Nadeem Akhtar Kidwai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Akhtar Kidwai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 22 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

Jag Narain Pandey Vs Ayodhya Prasad and Others

Tamseel and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Anubhag Lko.

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar Vs Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Chandrakala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Raja Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others