Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Mohd. Hasnain – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 6-Gram Sabha Saraydamu.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of a judgment and order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar Sadar, District Raebareli in Case No. RST/6410/2023, under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection that the order has been passed under Section 67(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under Sub-Section (3) or Sub-Section (4), may within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Collector.
4. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himanchal Predesh & Ors. AIR 2021 SC 2114, wherein the
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 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....
Availability of alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : The doctrine of precedent or Stare Decisis is a settled principle of law that a judgment, which has held the field for a long time, should not be unsettled. The doctrine of ' Stare Dec....
It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition....
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....
Point of Law : Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.
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
