Dismissed¶12

Deepak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025A227/6363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8), neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:237, order date 3.1.2025; Deepak and 2 others v. State of U.P. and others; maintainability versus statutory appeal under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; proceedings under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; partition of land holding; scheme of partition accepted by order dated 23.10.2024; alleged breach of principles of natural justice; minor petitioner; claimed mental illness without medical certificate; bypassing appellate remedy not permitted; petition dismissed; substantive pleas left unexamined.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed, with liberty to pursue available legal remedies. ¶12

Deepak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed, with liberty to pursue available legal remedies.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the instant petition is maintainable when the petitioners have a right of statutory appeal under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Since the petitioners have a right of filing statutory appeal, the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition, which is dismissed.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Merely because petitioner no.1 is a minor and petitioner no.2 is alleged to be mentally unwell confers no right on the petitioners to bypass the remedy of filing an appeal.

¶12

Key takeaways

On a perusal of the material on record, there is apparently no certificate issued by any competent doctor to indicate the mental illness of petitioner no.2 (the sentence continuing in the next paragraph).ratio¶11
It is made clear that the petitioners were non-suited only on the ground of availability of the statutory appeal, and their substantive pleas have not been examined.ratio¶13
It remains open to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.) | MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6363 of 2024 | Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:237 | Decided 3.1.2025. Petition challenging an order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and a subsequent order dated 23.10.2024 accepting a scheme of partition and finally deciding the division of land holding, was dismissed solely because the petitioners had a statutory appeal available under the Code. Minority of petitioner no.1 and alleged mental illness of petitioner no.2 — unsupported by any certificate from a competent doctor on record — were held not to confer any right to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court clarified that the petitioners were non-suited only on the ground of availability of statutory appeal and their substantive pleas were not examined; they remain free to seek remedies available in law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:237

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6363 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Deepak And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Jaiswal,Brij Mohan Singh,Mohit Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners have also challenged a subsequent order dated 23.10.2024 whereby a scheme of partition has been accepted and the proceedings for division of land holding has been finally decided.

¶8

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the instant petition is maintainable as the petitioners have a right of statutory appeal in terms of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the orders passed suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice and in the aforesaid context, the orders even though appealable may not be taken as a period and the petition is maintainable.

¶10

It is further urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is a minor whereas the petitioner no.2 is mentally unwell and the petitioner no.3 who is also co-tenure altogether have filed the instant petition and since this aspect regarding minority of the petitioner no.1 and mental illness of the petitioner no.2 has not been taken note by the authority, consequently, the order is bad.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, apparently, there is no certificate issued by any competent doctor to indicate the

¶12

mental illness of the petitioner no.2. Merely, because the petitioner no.1 is a minor and the petitioner no.2 is alleged to be mentally unwell will not confer any right on the petitioners to bypass any remedy in filing appeal. Since the petitioners have a right of filing statutory appeal, accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

It is made clear that the petitioners non suited only on the ground of availability of the statutory appeal and the plea of the petitioners has not been examined.

¶14

It will be open for the petitioners to take access to remedies as may be available to them in law.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Harshita

¶16

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

Deepak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases