# Jai Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1759
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-10
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 7417 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52019
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law -revenue law- proceedings under
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
challenged- impugned orders passed on
the basis of incorrect report of Revenue
Inspector- Alternative remedy- revision
under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006-High Court will not entertain a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India-effective alternative
remedy available to the aggrieved personstatue itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance- Petition dismissed.

HELD:
Having considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties, the Court is of
the opinion that several factual aspects as
submitted by counsels for the parties, need to be
ironed out before the writ petition can be decided
on merits. Moreover, a statutory remedy to assail
the order of the Commissioner passed under
Section 24 (4) has been provided in the statute
book itself which in the opinion of the Court may
not be bypassed.

The Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent
Education Society case (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, itself in Para
30 of the decision has clarified that the High
Court will not entertain a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative
remedy is available to the aggrieved person or
the statute under which the action is complained
of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition in the wake of
availability of a statutory alternate remedy of
filing a revision under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 against the impugned order
dated
19.12.2023
passed
by
the
Addl.
Commissioner (Administration) 2nd, Meerut
Division, Meerut. (Para 12)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
1760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank
& ors., Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2024 (arising out of
SLP (c) No. 8867 of 2022) decided on 10th April,
2024

## Text

5 All. Jai Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1759
the State Respondents it has been clearly
mentioned that after passing of the
impugned order dated 16.01.2009 and
restoration of the land as Gram Samaj and
the same has been allotted to the Respondent
Nos. 4, 5 & 6 vide order dated 31.05.2022
and the allottees i.e. the Respondent Nos. 4,
5 & 6 have already been put in possession
thereof and their names stand recorded over
the Plot No. 315 as Bhumidhars with non
transferable rights. Besides the petitioner is
not landless and Plot No. 316 area 0.877
hectare stand recorded in the name of his
mother and other co-sharers.

20. In view of the above, the Court is
not inclined to grant any indulgence to the
petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the dismissal of the writ petition
shall not come in the way of the petitioner to
establish his rights over the plot in dispute
by taking recourse to filing suit for
declaration of his rights over the land in
appropriate proceedings.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1759
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 7417 of 2024

Jai Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Mishra, Jai Shanker Misra, Vijai
Shanker Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Vineet Pandey

Civil Law -revenue law- proceedings under
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
challenged- impugned orders passed on
the basis of incorrect report of Revenue
Inspector- Alternative remedy- revision
under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006-High Court will not entertain a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India-effective alternative
remedy available to the aggrieved personstatue itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance- Petition dismissed.

HELD:
Having considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties, the Court is of
the opinion that several factual aspects as
submitted by counsels for the parties, need to be
ironed out before the writ petition can be decided
on merits. Moreover, a statutory remedy to assail
the order of the Commissioner passed under
Section 24 (4) has been provided in the statute
book itself which in the opinion of the Court may
not be bypassed.

The Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent
Education Society case (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, itself in Para
30 of the decision has clarified that the High
Court will not entertain a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative
remedy is available to the aggrieved person or
the statute under which the action is complained
of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition in the wake of
availability of a statutory alternate remedy of
filing a revision under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 against the impugned order
dated
19.12.2023
passed
by
the
Addl.
Commissioner (Administration) 2nd, Meerut
Division, Meerut. (Para 12)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
1760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank
& ors., Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2024 (arising out of
SLP (c) No. 8867 of 2022) decided on 10th April,
2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Jai Shanker Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos.
1 to 3. Smt. Anjali Upadhyay and Shri
Vineet Pandey, learned counsels have
accepted notice of the writ petition on behalf
of respondent Nos. 26 and 27, respectively.
However, they did not appear when the case
was heard.

2. The writ petition arises out of
proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 i.e. disputes regarding
boundaries and is directed against the order
dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Addl.
Commissioner
(Administration)
2nd,
Meerut in appeal under Section 24 (4) of the
Code registered as Case No. 1691 of 2023
whereby and whereunder the appeal has
been rejected and the order dated 4.7.2023
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dadri
in Case No. 24060 of 2021 (Heere and
others versus Devindra and others) under
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
directing the demarcation of the plot No.
436 situate in village Haibatpur, Tehsil
Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, has
been upheld.

3. A supplementary affidavit dated
2.5.2024 has been filed by learned counsel
for the petitioner, which is taken on record.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that
proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated at the
instance of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 for the
demarcation of Plot No. 436M, area 0.3467
hectare and Plot No. 287M area 0.900
hectares. The petitioner and the respondent
No. 17 to 24 are the owners of Plot Nos.
285M, 253M, 290/3 and 433/2. The
respondent Nos. 8 to 16 are the recorded
owners of Plot Nos. 434 and 290/1. The plot
Nos. 285, 253, 290 and 433 are not adjacent
to plot No. 436 of which the demarcation
was sought. The Revenue Inspector is stated
to have submitted his report on 8.1.2023
which was forwarded by the Tehsildar on
9.1.2023 to the Sub Divisional Officer
concerned mentioning that the area of Plot
No. 436 is 5.7990 hectares whereas the area
was only 0.3467 hectares as reflected in the
Khatauni pertaining to 1427-1432 Fasli filed
on record as Annexure-3. The Sub
Divisional Officer on the basis of an
incorrect report passed the order dated
4.7.2023 directing the demarcation of the
Plot No. 436. The order dated 4.7.2023 was
challenged in appeal which too has met with
the same fate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has assailed the impugned orders by
submitting that both the orders dated
4.7.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, as also the order dated 19.12.2023
passed by the Addl. Commissioner in appeal
under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 have been passed on incorrect
report of the Revenue Inspector, no physical
division of Plot No. 436, area 5.7990 hectare
and 436M area 0.3467 hectare has not been
done and no demarcation could be done
without physical division, the provisions
contemplated under Section 24 and Rule 22
of the Rules, 2016 have not been complied
with. The Greater Noida Authority as also
the U.P. State are the co-tenure holders of
Khasra plot No. 436M but the area
possessed by them has not been given in the
report forming the basis of the impugned
5 All. Jai Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1761
orders, the co-tenure holders of Khasra Plot
No. 436 as recorded in the Khatauni were
not made party to the proceedings.

6. In the supplementary affidavit dated
2.5.2024 in Para 12 thereof, it has been
stated that Plot No. 436, area 5.7990 hectare
has
already
been
acquired
under
Notification under the Land Acquisition Act
and the compensation of the acquired land
has already been received by the father of
the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 being area 5.4523
hectares and the remaining area of Plot No.
436 i.e. area 0.3467 has been sold by the
tenure holders to the irrigation department
through registered sale deeds. The total area
of plot No. 436 as well as 287 are in the
name of the Greater Noida Development
Authority and the Irrigation Department of
the State of U.P. and the same is not under
the ownership of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
It is contended that the respondent Nos. 4 to
7 did not have locus to initiate the
proceedings for demarcation under Section
24 of the Act to demarcate the plot No. 436
which has either been acquired or sold. It is
thus contended that the entire proceedings
under Section 24 are vitiated and liable to be
set aside and the writ petition allowed as
prayed.

7. Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl.
Chief Standing Counsel, in opposition to the
writ petition, submits that the petitioner has
an alternate remedy to assail the order dated
19.12.2023 in revision under Section 210 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 since the order
passed by the Commissioner under Section
24 (4) of the Code has been made subject to
the provisions of Section 210 of the Code by
the U.P. Act No. 7 of 2019. He submits that
the writ petition may not be entertained in
the wake of availability of an effective
alternate remedy.

8. Refuting the above submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that existence of an alternate remedy is not
an absolute bar rather is a self imposed
restriction and the present case is a fit case
where the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be exercised as the
orders impugned have been passed in the
utter disregard of the procedures prescribed
besides at the instance of persons who had
no locus to maintain the proceedings under
Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
having sold the land contained in the Plot
No. 436 demarcation of which was sought.

9. Reliance has been placed upon a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
PHR Invent Educational Society versus
UCO Bank and others, Civil Appeal No. Nil
of 2024 (arising out of SLP (c) No. 8867 of
2022) decided on 10th April, 2024,
particularly to Para 29 thereof, where the
Court has carved out certain exceptions
when a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution could be entertained in spite of
availability of an alternative remedy. Some
of them being:-

i) where the statutory authority has
not acted in accordance with the provisions
of the enactment in question;

ii) it has acted in defiance of the
fundamental
principles
of
judicial
procedure;

iii) it has resorted to invoke the
provisions which are repealed; and

iv) when an order has been passed
in total violation of the principles of nature
justice.

10. Based on the above, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
objection taken by the learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel may not be sustained and
1762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the writ petition be entertained and decided
on merits.

11. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records.

12. Having considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties, the Court is of the opinion that
several factual aspects as submitted by
counsels for the parties, need to be ironed
out before the writ petition can be decided
on merits. Moreover, a statutory remedy to
assail the order of the Commissioner passed
under Section 24 (4) has been provided in
the statute book itself which in the opinion
of the Court may not be bypassed.

13. The Apex Court in the case of PHR
Invent Education Society case (supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
itself in Para 30 of the decision has clarified
that the High Court will not entertain a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective alternative remedy is available to the
aggrieved person or the statute under which
the action is complained of has been taken
itself contains a mechanism for redressal of
grievance.

14. In view of the above, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the writ petition in the
wake of availability of a statutory alternate
remedy of filing a revision under Section 210
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the
impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by
the Addl. Commissioner (Administration)
2nd, Meerut Division, Meerut.

15. This Court finds that the limitation
for filing revision under Section 210 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is 60 days from the
date of the order sought to be revised. The 60
days have since expired. The writ petition was
presented in the Registry of this Court on
31.1.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that if a revision is now filed, the same
would be rejected on the ground of limitation
and there would be no adjudication on merits.

16. Taking note of the above, the writ
petition is permitted to be dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to
prefer a revision against the impugned order
dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Addl.
Commissioner (Administration) 2nd, Meerut
Division, Meerut under Section 210 within
three weeks from today.

17. In the eventuality of a revision being
filed by the petitioner within the time allowed
along with an application to condone the
delay, the Board of Revenue is expected to
condone the delay taking note of the fact that
the petitioner had been pursuing the writ
petition before this Court and entertain the
revision consider and decide the same on
merits ignoring the point of limitation.

18. The certified copies of the impugned
orders shall be returned to the petitioner after
retaining a photocopy of the same on record.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1762
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ - C No. 8626 of 2024

Ghaziabad Development Authority
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahesh Narain Singh