Back
JASPREET SINGH
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Heard Shri. Rajeiu Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. Shri. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Shri. Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the private-respondents No.4 to 6 and Shri. Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.20.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda in proceedings initiated under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code of 2006').
3. At the outset, a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was raised by the learned counsel for the private-respondents as well as the learned standing counsel and it is urged that in view of Section 66(3) of the Code of 2006, the petitioners have an adequate and effective remedy of filing a revision before the revisional authority, hence, the instant petition is not maintainable.
4. Shri. Tripahti, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order impugned is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as by means of the impugned order the lease granted in favour of the petitioners was r
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 emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, with exceptions for violations of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
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 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 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 ....
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....
Availability of alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
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....
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
