IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 at the very out set submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Commissioner in appeal under Section 24 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 has been made subject to the provisions of Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and finality to the order passed under Section 210 has been attached. He submits that the issue has already been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 25616 of 2021 (Jhinka Devi versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others). In Paras 48 & 49 of the aforesaid decision, the Court has held as under:

48. The mere fact that there is no further appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner in an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24 would not be held to create a bar in invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 210 of the Code. The jurisdiction conferred on the Board under Section 210 to revise the orders passed by the subordinate revenue courts would not be dependent on a motion being made by a party to the case inasmuch as the section confers power upon the Board to exercise revisional jurisdiction independent of any such motion having been made. The fact that a right of appeal is not given to the party concerned would therefore not be held to affect the jurisdiction vested in the Board under Section 210.

49. The provision under sub-section (4) of Section 24, as it existed, prior to the amending Act of 2019, that “the order of the Commissioner shall be final” would therefore be held to mean no more than that the order passed in appeal under subsection (4) would not be subject to any second appeal. The provision with regard to finality attached to the order of the Commissioner under sub-section (4) would not in any manner be held to limit or control the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Board under Section 210.

5. It is, thus, submitted that in the wake of availability of alternate remedy, the writ petition may not be entertained and the petitioner be relegated to the statutory alternate remedy available.

6. The submissions of Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel have been refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the alternate remedy as stated by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel may not be treated to be an absolute bar inasmuch as the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed in view of the patent illegality committed by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 24 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. He has invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 to demonstrate that no reasons whatsoever have been stated for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4.2.2022 passed under Section 24 of the Code. He submits that the Appellate Authority has merely