Back
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Hari Prasad Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing along with Sri Satyendra Nath Srivastava and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, and Sri Amresh Kumar Tewari learned Standing Counsel, for the State respondents, and Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 3.1.2023, passed by the respondent No. 4, the Tahsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, in Case No. 559 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202202420300559) [Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Hari Prasad Pandey] in proceedings under Section 25 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [the Revenue Code] and also praying for certain ancillary reliefs.
3. An objection has been raised by the counsel appearing for the State respondents with regard to the entertainability of the writ petition by pointing out that the order passed under Section 25 of the Revenue Code, would be subject to the statutory alternative remedy of a revision under Section 27 of the Revenue Code.
4. In response to the aforesaid obje
The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 applies to areas under Nagar Panchayats, and the availability of a statutory alternative remedy precludes the entertainment of a writ petition.
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver; appeals under the UP Revenue Code must follow the prescribed procedures, and jurisdictio....
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
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 right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of the Act of 1950 survives the repeal of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The U.P. Revenue Code's provisions regarding appeals are self-contained and govern the necessity of filing documents, overriding general procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
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
