Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Mohd. Shad – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Balrampur And Others – Respondents
Writ C No. 1934 of 2024
Decided on : 29-02-2024
Alternate Remedy - Availability of Appeal under Section 34 of the Gram Nyayalay Act, 2008 - [Section 34] - The court discussed the availability of alternate remedy of appeal under Section 34 of the Act, 2008, based on the valuation of the suit and the question of law. It interpreted the provisions of sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 34 and concluded that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal under sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was aggrieved by a judgment and order allowing a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner for alleged encroachment on the land of the respondent. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession over a plot adjacent to the respondent's plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal under sub-section (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.
Issues: The primary issue was the availability of alternate remedy of appeal to the petitioner who was aggrieved by the impugned judgment. The court also considered the question of res-judicata raised by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008, and the finding that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal under sub-section (c) of Section 34.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy under sub-section (b) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Rayees Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gram Nyayalay, Tulsipur, Balrampur wherein he has allowed the suit preferred by respondent no. 3 seeking permanent injunction against petitioner, who was respondent no. 2 in the said suit.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is owner and in possession over Gata No. 1589/0.06 dismil in which he has constructed a house, while respondent no. 3 is owner of Gata No. 1590/2.23 acres, situated at Village - Gulahariya Hisampur, Pargana and Tehsil - Tulsipur, District - Balrampur. Both the plots are adjacent to each other and in the suit preferred by respondent no. 3 it was alleged that petitioner has encroached upon the land of respondent no. 3/plaintiff illegally and consequently relief of permanent injunction was sought. Respondent no. 2/petitioner herein appeared before the Gram Nyayalay and participated in the suit proceedings. After examining the contentions as well as evidence on record the suit was allowed by means of impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2024.
4. Preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents stating that against the impugned judgment passed under the Gram Nyayalay Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2008") the said judgment is appellable before the district Courts as per Section 34 of the Act, 2008.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the said preliminary objection stating that in the present mater valuation of suit was less then Rs.1000/- and as per sub- section (b) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008 an appeal does not lie where the valuation of the suit does not exceed Rs.1000/- and consequently, the petitioner does not have any other remedy except for filing writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The primary issue raised by the respondents is with regard to availability of alternate remedy of appeal to the petitioner who is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2024. For the sake of convenience Section 34 of the Act, 2008 is quoted herein below :-
(2) No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order passed by the Gram Nyayalaya-
(a) with the consent of the parties;
(b) where the amount or value of the subject matter of a suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees one thousand;
(c) except on a question of law, where the amount or value of the subject matter of such suit, claim or dispute does not exceed rupees five thousand.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Gram Nyayalaya:
Provided that the District Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period.
(4) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of by the District Court within six months from the date of filing of the appeal.
(5) The District Judge may, pending disposal of the appeal, stay execution of the judgment or order appealed against.
(6) The decision of the District Court under sub-section (4) shall be final and no appeal or revision shall lie from the decision of the District Court:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall preclude any person from availing of the judicial remedies available under articles 32 and 226 of the Const
Availability of alternate remedy of appeal under Section 34 of the Gram Nyayalay Act, 2008
The main legal point established is that the Gram Nyayalaya's jurisdiction is limited to specific types of civil cases, and suits falling outside this scope should be adjudicated by a civil court.
In land disputes, possession and legal title must be clearly established, and unilateral attempts to dispossess based on communal claims without proper justification are impermissible.
A suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable when encroachment is established, particularly if the land has been acquired by the state, barring the plaintiff's cause of action.
The suit for permanent injunction based on possessory title is maintainable, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed without manifest error.
Jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act cannot be altered by administrative directions; valid transfers to Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act affirmed without challenging the latter's pro....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
