Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Balmiki Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment procedural directives. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 9) |
| 2. maintainability of revision under code of 2006. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. interpretation of section 210 regarding judicial propriety. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/ Gram Panchayat concerned, Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Advocate along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6, which is taken on record, and Sri Manoj Kumar Nishad, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8 & 9, which is taken on record.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to rest of the private respondents is hereby dispensed with. They are also at liberty to file an appropriate application for recall of this order, if they are aggrieved by it.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Revision filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case
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 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 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 emphasized that once a legal revision is entertained, subsequent orders should not arbitrarily modify prior orders, maintaining the integrity of due process.
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....
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
