Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Ramavtar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Shri Avanees Kumar Rai under the authority of Samarth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 is being dispensed with.
3. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 24 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and is directed against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in appeal No. 257 of 2022 by the Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, Varanasi in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed upholding the order dated 4.2.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chakiya, District Chandauli under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
4. Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel
Judicial orders must be supported by reasons, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy limits the court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The existence of an adequate alternate remedy under statutory provisions justifies the dismissal of a petition challenging an administrative order, emphasizing the self-imposed discipline of Constitu....
The court ruled that an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is subject to revision under Section 210, emphasizing the supervisory role of the Board or Commissioner over subor....
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, with exceptions for violations of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned and speaking orders to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary decision-making.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the first appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 cannot be filed against an order passed under Section 24, and the appeal can ....
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.
The court emphasized that once a legal revision is entertained, subsequent orders should not arbitrarily modify prior orders, maintaining the integrity of due process.
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
Listen Article