Dismissed

Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa v. Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh and Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024/7988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged validity of SDM order via writ; court noted statutory appeal remedy under U.P. Revenue Code exists; dismissed writ without examining merits and advised petition to pursue appeal instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no grant of any specific relief; petitioner directed to avail statutory appeal remedy.

Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa Vs Sub Divisional Officer… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64651

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7988 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Vishnu Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing State of U.P. and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel representing opposite party No.11- Village Panchayat Saray Jagat Singh, Pargana-Rampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh in Case No.345/2013-14 under Section 176 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, whereby while inviting objections against an application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 18.12.2014 filed by the Gram Pradhan, the S.D.M. stayed the operation of the order dated 18.12.2014 and consequential orders and has restrained the parties from raising any constructions on the land in dispute.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 207 (2)(c) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶8

In reply to the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for setting aside ex-parte order has been filed after seven years and that too, without any application for condonation of delay and in these circumstances, the S.D.M. had no jurisdiction to pass any stay order.

¶9

Be that as it may, as the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal, all the pleas are open for the petitioner to be taken in appeal. Without going into merits of the case, as the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal, this petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

¶10

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶11

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 -Amit K-

¶12

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

Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa v. Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa v. Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh 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

Ram Krishna Dwivedi and Another Vs Indrasen Rawat

Danish Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vedant Maurya @ Kumari Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Chetram and Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Rasid Ali Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Bahadur Vs Civil Judge Senior Division F.T.C. Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others