Smt. Shakuntala and 4 Others vs M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116175

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7332 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala And 4 Others Respondent :- M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Swapnesh Singh,Sr. Advocate

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned standing counsel for the staterespondent nos.2 & 3 and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel for the Land Management Committee (respondent no.4).

¶9

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur (respondent no.3) in Case No.293 of 2023 (M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Smt. Shakuntala and others) under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur (respondent no.3) in Case No.5933 of 2024 (Smt. Shakuntala and others Vs. M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited) under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Administration (respondent no.2) in Appeal No.2173 of 2024 (Smt. Shakuntala and others Vs. M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited) under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶10

Preciously the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 20.05.2023 has been passed by the

¶11

respondent no.3- Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur on the basis of an ex-parte report submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector and the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur (respondent no.3), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2024 with perverse finding that the petitioners had the knowledge of the proceeding and the order dated 20.05.2023 is not an ex-parte order.

¶12

Thereafter, the petitioners challenged both the orders dated 20.05.2023 as well as the order dated 21.09.2024 by way of appeal before the Court of learned Commissioner, Meerut, which was registered as Appeal No.2173 of 2024, under Section 24(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶13

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate court without taking into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioners has dismissed, the said appeal by almost reiterating the findings returned by the lower court.

¶14

Learned standing counsel appearing for the state-respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the said writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of revision, to the petitioners, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶15

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners could not dispute the aforesaid legal objection of availability of statutory remedy against the impugned order.

¶16

In view of the nature of the proposed order to be passed herein, the service of notice upon the respondent no.1 is dispensed with.

¶17

Taking into consideration as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending, rather to meet the ends of justice the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to prefer revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to challenge the orders impugned in the present writ petition; before the competent Court having jurisdiction, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶18

It is provided that in case, if such a revision as aforesaid is filed before the competent court having jurisdiction, the same shall be entertained by the concerned revisional court. Further, the said revisional court shall make every endeavour to decide the same within a period of six months from the date of institution of the said revision as per Clause 458(2) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which provides as under:

¶19

" 458. Speedy Disposal- (1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same shall be recorded.

¶20

(2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶21

It is also provided herein that in case, if the petitioners prefer to file an application for interim relief along with the aforesaid revision, the same shall be considered by the court concerned, in

¶22

the light of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav & another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur & others, reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 and the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. through Collector Bijnor & others; reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 and appropriate orders of the same shall be passed within a maximum period of one month from the date of filing of the same.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Sanjeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shakuntala and 4 Others v. M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala and 4 Others v. M/S Aneeb Chemicals Private Limited 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Makkhan Lal vs Anjum Bano

Shyam Sundar vs Ranvir Singh @ Pappu and 2 Others

Smt Ram Devi vs Shri Deepak and 4 Others

Smt. Triveni Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Keshwar Chamar vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Molahoo vs Sumitra Devi and 29 Others