Dismissed¶15

Prem Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2025WRIC/10696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prem Bahadur v. State of U.P. thru Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others; WRIT - C No. 10696 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur, J.; decided November 7, 2025; U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Section 30; Section 210 revision; efficacious alternate remedy; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; ADM (Finance and Revenue) Ayodhya order dated 30.09.2025; liberty to file revision; revision to be decided expeditiously; counsel Onkar Nath Tiwari; Umesh Kumar Pandey for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file revision against the impugned order; any revision filed within two weeks to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. ¶15

Prem Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10696 of 2025

Prem Bahadur

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Onkar Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh, Umesh Kumar Pandey

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents as well as Sri Umesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶12

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 30.09.2025, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Ayodhya, passed in exercise of power under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 has raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy of challenging the impugned order under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The preliminary objections are taken on record.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not oppose the preliminary objection and submits that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file revision against the impugned order.

¶15

Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

It is however, provided that in case revision is filed by the petitioner within next two weeks, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶17

November 7, 2025 A. Verma

¶18

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶19

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

Prem Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 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

Hind Iron Store Thru. Proprietor Mohammad Isha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration, Lko. and 2 Others

M/S R Cube Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Ravinder Kaur Srivastava vs Sri Kumar Prashant, Managing Director U.P. State Construction and Infrastr. Dev. Corp. Ltd.Lko.

Pramila Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Pratapgarh and 21 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others

Rajiv Kumar Mishra Vs the Nayab Tahsildar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh and Others