Dismissed¶14

Jarrar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2025WRIC/376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 219 U.P. Land Revenue Act 2001; revisional proceedings; revision case no.1070 of 2024 / C202408000001070; admission of revision order dated 29.07.2024; quashing revision instituted by private respondents; material concealment of facts; fraud upon revisional court; mutation proceedings finality (Annexure No.1); maintainability of revision; objections filed 09.10.2024 pending before respondent No.2; writ of certiorari; dismissal with liberty to press objections; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Writ-C 376 of 2025; 2025:AHC-LKO:2661; Jaspreet Singh J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty left to the petitioner to raise and press his objections before respondent No.2, where they would be considered and decided in accordance with law. ¶14

Jarrar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty left to the petitioner to raise and press his objections before respondent No.2, where they would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire revisional proceedings relating to case no.1070 of 2024 (computerized case no.C202408000001070) instituted under Section 219, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2001 by the private respondents - allegedly upon material concealment of facts and by playing fraud upon the Learned Revisional Court so as to defeat finality of the mutation proceedings (Annexure No.1) - should be quashed by writ of certiorari. +2 more

¶8

Ratio / Principle

As the petitioner had already filed his objections on 09.10.2024, pending before respondent No.2, this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition for the reliefs as claimed; it left it open to the petitioner to raise and press his objections before respondent No.2, where they would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶13

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition was dismissed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.) | WRIT - C No. 376 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:2661) | Order dated 16.1.2025. Petitioner Jarrar Ali sought certiorari (i) to quash the entire revisional proceedings (case no.1070 of 2024; computerized case no.C202408000001070) instituted under Section 219, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2001 by the private respondents, alleging material concealment of facts and fraud played upon the Learned Revisional Court so as to prevent finality attaching to the mutation proceedings (Annexure No.1), and (ii) to quash the order dated 29.07.2024 admitting that revision without proper appreciation of facts. On being told that the petitioner had already filed objections on 09.10.2024 pending before respondent No.2, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it with liberty to raise and press the objections before respondent No.2, which would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2661

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 376 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Jarrar Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"I. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the entire revisional proceedings relating to case no.1070 of 2024 computerized case no.C202408000001070 U/s 219 U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2001 as the same have been instituted by the private respondents upon material concealment of facts and by playing fraud upon the Learned Revisional Court only with a view to prevent finality being attached to the mutation proceedings, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶9

II. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2024 by which the revision bearing computerized case no.C202408000001070 U/s 219 U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2001 has been admitted without proper appreciation of facts, in the interest of justice."

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that revision which has been preferred by the private-respondents is an abuse of the process of law and suffers from fraudulent averments made in the revision. Moreover, the revision itself is not maintainable which is admitted by the Court concerned by means of the order dated 29.07.2024.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court had put a specific query to him as to whether the petitioner has filed his objections before the revisional Court to which it is answered in affirmative that the objections have been filed on 09.10.2024 which are pending before the respondent No.2.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances including

¶13

that the petitioner has already filed his objections before the respondent No.2, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for the reliefs as claimed as noticed above, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his objections and press the same before the respondent No.2 needless to say would be considered and decided the same in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Rakesh/-

¶16

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

Jarrar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarrar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow 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

Saikat Taki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Rahisul Nisha Vs the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil-Lambhuwa, Sultanpur and Others

M/S P.R. Developer Thru. Its Propritor Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 14 Others

Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Patti Mandal Prayagraj, Pratapgarh

Ram Bhawan and Another vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 6 Others

Hori Lal Sahu vs Tehsildar Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh and 2 Others