Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Kanti Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1667 of 2025
Decided on : 27-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gyanendra Pathak,Abhishek Srivastav,Adarsh Kumar Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Conditions imposed under Section 80 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code must align with statutory provisions, and failure to do so results in a lack of legal authority.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 80 - The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the order dated 23.07.2024, claiming such conditions were not supported by statutory provisions. The court found that the conditions imposed were beyond the authority provided under the Code, leading to a lack of proper application of mind by the opposite party. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to act within the bounds of statutory provisions, highlighting the failure of the Additional Commissioner to consider relevant sections of the Code. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which imposed conditions under Section 80 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, claiming those conditions were not permissible under the statute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conditions imposed were not authorized by the Code and that the Additional Commissioner failed to apply the relevant statutory provisions.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the conditions imposed under Section 80 of the Code and the adequacy of the Additional Commissioner's review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that conditions imposed under Section 80 must align with the statutory framework, and any order lacking such alignment is subject to quashing.
Result: The order dated 05.03.2025 was set aside, and the petition was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges conditions imposed by sub-divisional magistrate. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court considers relevant statutory provisions for decision. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court finds failure in applying statutory provisions. (Para 6) |
| 4. order set aside, petition allowed with no costs. (Para 7 , 8) |
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate- Bahraich to the extent of condition(s) imposed therein while exercising power under Section 80 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code') in the case registered as Computerized Case No.T802024028697, instituted by the petitioner- Kanti Devi.
The operative portion of the order dated 23.07.2024 reads as under.
3. The underline portion of operative portion of order dated 23.07.2024, quoted above, is in issue before this Court as also was the issue before the opposite party no.2 -Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Devi Patan Division Gonda, who passed the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 in the case instituted under Section 210 of Code 2006 registered as Revision/Case No.1305 of 2024; Computerized Case No.C202408000001305 (Kanti Devi Vs. State of U.P.). Relevant portion of the same is extracted hereinunder :-
4. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, based upon the relevant provisions of the Code and perused the impugned order.
5. In order to decide the controversy/issue involved in the present petition this Court finds it appropriate to take note of hindi and english version of concerned Section(s) of the Code, and U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (in short 'Rules') which are as under.
6. Upon due consideration of the above quoted statutory proviso, this Court finds that interference in the matter is required. It is for the
following reasons:-
(i) The condition(s) as imposed in the order dated 23.07.2024, referred above, could not have been imposed as the statutory provisions, quoted above, do not provide such power and the conditions which can be indicated while passing the order in exercise of power under Section 80 of the Code can be deduced from Sub-Section 2 and Sub-Section 7 of Section 80 of the Code.
(ii) The opposite party no.2 passed the order in utter mechanic manner as also without application of mind and without taking note of the specific provisions, quoted above, related to the issue involved before it. Though he was under obligation to take note of the same and pass appropriate order while affirming or modifying the order dated 23.07.2024.
(iii) The application preferred under Section 80 of the Code can be allowed or rejected after taking note of the conditions indicated in the statutory provisions including the conditions indicated under Sub-Section (4), (7) and (8) of Section 80 of Code and the permission so granted can be cancelled only in terms of Section 82 of the Code and all these aspects ought to have been taken note of by the opposite party no.2 who failed to take note of the same and accordingly, this Court finds that the opposite party no.2 failed to discharge the statutory obligation.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 05.03.2025 is set aside/quashed to the extent aforesaid. The petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs.
8. The Court records the valuable assistance given by Ms. Urmish Shankar, Research Associate, attached with me in drafting this judgment.
