Hari Sharan Dixit and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition concerning an order passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; respondents objected that a statutory remedy remained available. Petitioner's counsel sought adjournment to prepare on maintainability; matter listed fresh.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39813 of 2025
Hari Sharan Dixit And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
| State Of U.P. And 7 Others | Versus | .... | .Respondent(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : Rajesh Kumar |
Pandey | |
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : C.S.C., Hari Dubey |
Narayan | Singh, Sunil |
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Counsel for the State-respondents and the counsel appearing for the private respondent have raised an objection by pointing out that against the impugned order passed in the first appeal arising out of an order under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioner would have a further statutory legal remedy and in view thereof the present petition would not be entertainable.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to get ready on the point.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is entertainable given an available statutory remedy against the first appeal order under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Hari Sharan Dixit And 5 Others
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIC/39813/2025
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- Order 2 · Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court