Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
Ram Nath and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 7272 of 2023
Decided On : 23-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Prem Chand Saroj
For the Respondent: Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Availability of alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Headnote:
Alternative Remedy - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, allowing the petitioners to file appeals under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within one month from the date of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Tehsildar under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in two different cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, allowing the petitioners to file appeals within one month from the date of the judgment.
Issues: Challenge to orders under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and availability of alternative remedy through filing appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and allowed the petitioners to file appeals within one month from the date of the judgment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were allowed to file appeals within one month from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.

2. Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 09.01.2023 passed by respondent no. 3, Tehsildar, Tehsil Badlapur, district Jaunpur, in Case No. 03676 of 2019 (Computerized Case No. T201914360203687)(Report Lekhpal vs Baijnath), and Case No. 03689 of 2019 (Computerized Case No. T201914360203689) (Lekhpal Report vs Lal Mani), under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3. A perusal of the said orders, which have been compiled in a single annexure would show that the aforesaid different cases were registered against the different persons, who have been clubbed together as petitioners in this writ petition. Therefore, the frame of the writ petition is not according to law.

4. Further, by the impugned orders dated 09.01.2023, proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided against the petitioners in two different cases, all the persons aggrieved may file appeals against the same, under the provisions of section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the period of filing statutory appeal under section 67 (5) of the Code, is 30 days, which period has expired, and therefore, the petitioners cannot file appeals.

7. Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed very recently, it is provided that in case, appeals are filed by the petitioners within a period of one month from today, the same shall be heard and considered on merits without raising any objection with regard to delay, which is being condoned by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document