The court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedy under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, noting the maintainability objection raised by the State.
Liberty granted to avail the remedy under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29979
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3459 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Prakash And 3 Others Respondent :- Ziladhikari Distt. Amethi And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Narain Shukla,Namit Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9.
Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for implementation of the order dated 29.10.2022 passed under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 in case no. 4115/2020 titled as 'Onkar Nath vs. Ram Prakash'.
By virtue of Section 4(16), U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is defined as under:-
"Revenue Court" means all or any of the following authorities (that is to say) the Board and all Members thereof, Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors, [Chief Revenue Officers, Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, Assistant Record Officers, Tahsildar, Tahsildars (Judicial) and Naib-Tahsildars;]
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 214 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
The respective provisions are extracted hereunder:-
214. Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Limitation Act,1963-
Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to every suit, application or proceedings under this Code.
460. Execution of decree and order (1) The decree or order passed under the Code or the Rules framed under the Code shall, mutatis mutandis, be executed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V.
(2) The Assistant Collector/Tahsildar passing the order for eviction or recovery of any amount of damages or compensation under the provisions of Section 67 of the Code shall get the order executed and in execution of the order he shall, mutatis mutandis, follow the procedure laid down in paragraphs 137 and 138.
In the case of Ajab Lal vs. Rakesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. reported in 2007 Alld. pg 158 , the position as regards execution of orders passed by the Revenue courts was dealt with and it was held that the revenue courts itself are possessed with such a jurisdiction.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as permissible under law.
Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajab Lal vs. Rakesh Kumar Mishra & Ors.Referred¶17
2007 Alld. pg 158
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Prakash And 3 Others
Ziladhikari Distt. Amethi And 8 Others
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
