Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Vijay Kumar And Others - Petitioner
Versus
Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. - 10829 OF 2023.
Decided On : 15-02-2024
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 rejected and that too in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Code of 2006.
5. It is urged that Section 66(2) of the Code of 2006 proscribes that an application seeking enquiry into irregular allotment of abadi sites shall not be entertained if it is made after expiration of three years from the date of allotment.
6. It is urged that admittedly the lease granted in favour of the petitioners is dated 24.02.1992. It is also urged that even earlier an attempt was made to get the lease of the petitioners cancelled which did not find favour. The parties were also engaged in a civil suit whereby the private-respondents could not succeed. Again in order to harass the petitioners, a complaint was made by the predecessor-in-interest of the private-respondents namely Mohan Lal. Thus, it is urged that where the proceedings are per se without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the bar of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar and it does not create a bar of exercise of jurisdiction for the Constitutional Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to consider the matter, hence, the petition deserves to be admitted.
7. Shri. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from the perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Code of 2006, it would reveal that it is the order of the Collector made under this section which shall subject to provisions of Section 210 of the Code of 2006 be final.
8. The contention is that every order as referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Code of 2006 would mean the final order passed by the Collector either allowing the application or rejecting it. However, in the instant case, the order passed by the Collector is an interlocutory in the sense that the Collector has found the proceedings to be maintainable by ignoring the delay as well as the embargo contained in sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Code of 200. It is thus urged that it is a fit case for consideration and the petitioners may not be relegated to the alternate forum.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited and another v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and another, (2021) 6 SCC 15 to buttress his submissions that the availability of alternate remedy does not prohibit the High Court in entertaining the petition in appropriate case.
10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties on the limited issue regarding the maintainability of the petition.
11. It is no doubt true that no fetter can be cast on the Constitutional Courts for exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The availability of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar rather it is part of a self-impos
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
