Disposed¶21

Smt. Manju Devi and 2 Others v. Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2025WRIC/9936/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow) WRIT-C 9936 of 2025; disposed October 10, 2025; Jaspreet Singh, J.; rejection of amendment application challenged; Section 41 U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 versus Section 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; revision lies before same Authority; writ petition not entertained and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioners were left open to move an appropriate application (revision) before the same Authority, to be considered on its own merit. ¶21

Smt. Manju Devi and 2 Others Vs Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9936 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Manju Devi And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 34.

¶12

In view of the order proposed by the Court, notice to the respondent nos. 2 to 33 is dispensed with.

¶13

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 03rd September, 2025.

¶14

It is urged that the proceedings were initiated under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the same came to be decided on 09.03.2016. Inadvertently, an application under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be filed, however, the petitioners in order to rectify the error have moved an application for amendment which has been rejected by means of order dated 03rd September, 2025 which is under challenge here.

¶15

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that primarily against the order dated 03.09.2016 under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the petitioner ought to have filed a revision, however, though, the attempt was the same to get the same rectified through an amendment which has been rejected. It should have been left open for the

¶16

WRIC No. 9936 of 2025

¶17

¶18

petitioner to move an appropriate application as the Authority who has to decide either the revision under the Act of 1901 or the appeal would be the same.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed that the proceedings were initiated under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 against an order impugned, the revision would lie and in case if the revision lies before the same Authority, it will be open for the petitioner move an appropriate application which shall be considered by the court concerned on its own merit.

¶20

Wit the aforesaid observations, it is stated that this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶23

October 10, 2025

¶24

Asheesh

¶25

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

Smt. Manju Devi and 2 Others v. Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Devi and 2 Others v. Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Division, Gonda 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

Razi Ullah Khan Thru. Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Ayub Khan Vs Wasim Ullah Khan @ Babbu Khan and Others

M/S Vishwa Printers and Packegers Private Ltd.Thru.Director Vibhash Nand Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax Registration Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Hardeep Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Paramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Bateshwar Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sitapur and Anr.

Jainarayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs the Court of Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, Ayodhya and Others