Narayani Devi vs Mahendra Kr. Tripathi

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1997 Supreme(SC) 1703

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : S.R.Babu
Narayani Devi
Versus
Mahendra Kr.Tripathi
Case No. : 4968 of 1997
Date of Decision : 12/19/97
Advocates Appeared: Mishra S.K. : Sharma Naresh K. : Sinha A.N. : Srivastava A.K.

Important Points

A revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not maintainable against a final order of allotment or release; the appropriate legal remedy in such instances is the filing of a writ petition.

Subject

Civil Law - Land Laws

Act Referred

UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION ACT: S.18

Headnote

(A) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 18 - Allotment or release proceedings - Remedy against final order - Revision under Section 18 not maintainable - Remedy lies in filing a writ petition. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
The court below had permitted a party to contest proceedings for allotment or release and, upon the passing of a final order of allotment or release, granted the liberty to file a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that it is the admitted position that a revision under Section 18 of the specified Act would not lie in the eventuality of a final order of allotment or release being passed.

Issues: Whether a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is a maintainable remedy following a final order of allotment or release.

Ratio Decidendi: Since a revision is not maintainable under the statutory provisions in such circumstances, the direction of the lower court is clarified to permit the aggrieved party to move a writ petition instead of a revision.

Result: Special Leave Petition disposed of with clarification; cross-petition dismissed on merit.

Legal Category Hierarchy

(1) SPECIAL Leave Petition (C) No. 4968/97 : In the impugned order dated 3/1/1997, the High court has observed that M.K. Tripathi, the 1st respondent herein, would be permitted to contest the proceedings for allotment or release, as the case may be, and after a final order of allotment or release has been passed, he would be entitled to file a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is the admitted position that a revision in that eventuality would not lie. It has been urged that the said direction be read as if the High court was permitting the said respondent to move in a writ petition in the event of the final order of allotment or release going against him. As suggested, it is so clarified. With these observations, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4968/97 preferred by Smt. Narayani Devi would stand disposed of.

SLP (C) No. 8481/97

(2) THIS cross-petition is dismissed on merit.