Dismissed

M/S Jgf Industries Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024WRIC/28674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under Section 38(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, alleging violation of natural justice. Court dismissed petition as alternative remedy lay and permitted appeal. Appellate authority directed to decide stay and merits within six weeks, with status quo pending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal before Commissioner within three weeks. Status quo maintained for four months. Appellate authority to decide stay application within six weeks.

M/S Jgf Industries Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 4… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:158798

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28674 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Jgf Industries Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreya Gupta,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravi Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that pending disposal of the instant writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect & operation of the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed the Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, the respondent no. 4, in Case No. 1266/2024 (Computerized Case No. T202403400401266), under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and further to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order; otherwise, the petitioner/applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss & injury."

¶9

The order impugned was passed in terms of the provisions contained under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is quoted as under:-

¶10

"If a Kisan Bahi is lost, damaged or mutilated, the revenue officer referred to in sub-rule (1) may issue a duplicate Kisan Bahi to the tenure-holder on his paying Rs.20/- as fee."

¶11

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents that against the order impugned, statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner within a period of 30 days.

¶12

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the sale deed dated 26.06.2022, the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute. It is further argued as stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that order impugned has been passed against him without providing notice and opportunity of hearing and the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, since the statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner, the present petition is disposed of , permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division within a period of three weeks. In case such an appeal is filed along with the stay application, appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits and the same could not be dismissed only on the ground of latches.

¶14

In so far as the application for grant of interim protection is concerned since the order impugned has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing, the appellate authority is directed to decide the stay application within six weeks from the date of presentation of the appeal before the appellate authority.

¶15

For the period of four months from today or till the time of disposal of the stay application whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 Ruhi H.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Jgf Industries Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jgf Industries Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Shiv Murat Yadav vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ramdhani Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abdul Kayum and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Km Neha Gupta vs State of Up and 4 Others

Rudal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jyotsana Saxena vs State of U.P. and 4 Others