# Qamar Abbas v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 658
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10931 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/qamar-abbas-v-addl-commissioner-judicial-i-lko-ors-49499
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law-- The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 - The Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code- 2006-Sections 24, 207 &
210--- Whether an order passed under Section
24 can be challenged in first appeal filed under
Section 207 or not?---Held---The first appeal
under Section 207 can be filed against an order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under
Section 24 is misconceived and not tenable and
the appeal against an order passed by the SubDivisional Officer under Section 24 can be filed
only under Section 24(4) of Code- 2006 before
the Commissioner and the order passed by the
Commissioner shall, subject to the provision of
Section 210, be final.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)
12 All. Qamar Abbas Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. & Ors.
659
List of Cases cited:

## Text

658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
spoke in Sigma Finance Corpn (above),
assists the lawyer or judge to ascertain the
objective meaning of disputed provisions."
(emphasis supplied)

11. Petitioner took insurance policy
with the intention to secure himself
financially in case he suffers from a
physical disability and his earning takes a
hit. The insurance policy itself undertakes
to indemnify the petitioner in the form of
disability benefits in case he suffers from
total and permanent disability. Therefore
any interpretation of indemnifying clauses
has to be construed with regard to
Insurance Corporation's undertaking to
indemnify the petitioner on occurrence of
certain events. Therefore the words "any
wages, compensation or profit" should be read
in conjunction with the entire first part of
clause 10.4 and would mean some adverse
impact on earning capacity, not necessarily
quantifiable, but enough to put assured in a
financially disadvantageous position. The
petitioner having suffered from amputation of
his right arm can not perform his profession as
efficiently as he was performing before his
unfortunate accident. His performance is
seriously impacted in handling his files, books,
laptops, and other necessities required in the
performance of his profession as a lawyer, not
to mention the hesitancy of prospective
litigators in hiring him due to his perceived
disability. Comparing his current situation
with his earlier situation as a person with
disability it can be concluded that petitioner
can not ever sufficiently do or follow his
profession as an advocate, to earn his
compensation, as he was doing before the
accident. Therefore it can be concluded that
his earning capacity has taken a sufficient hit
after his accident.

12. In view thereof, the petitioner is
held entitled to disability benefits. This
petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated
27.07.2006 and 17.08.2006 are hereby
quashed.
Respondent
Insurance
Corporation is directed to pay disability
benefits to the petitioner alongwith an
interest of 8% p.a. from the date they are
due, within 30 days of this order.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 658
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 10931 of 2023

Qamar Abbas ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rohit
Tripathi,
Nida
Navi,
Shishir
Srivastava, Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Abhitendra Singh, Dilip Kumar
Pandey, Jaibind Singh Rathour, Nritika
Singh

Civil Law-- The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 - The Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code- 2006-Sections 24, 207 &
210--- Whether an order passed under Section
24 can be challenged in first appeal filed under
Section 207 or not?---Held---The first appeal
under Section 207 can be filed against an order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under
Section 24 is misconceived and not tenable and
the appeal against an order passed by the SubDivisional Officer under Section 24 can be filed
only under Section 24(4) of Code- 2006 before
the Commissioner and the order passed by the
Commissioner shall, subject to the provision of
Section 210, be final.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)
12 All. Qamar Abbas Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. & Ors.
659
List of Cases cited:

1. Writ-B No.229 of 2023; Dinesh Chandra @
Dinesh Chandra Tiwari & ors.

2. Jhinka Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; Writ- C
No.25616 of 2021 judgment and order dated
12.05.2022

3. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & ors.; 2023
SCC OnLine SC 95

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijendra
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, Shri J.B.S. Rathour, learned
counsel for the respondent no.3/ caveator
and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent no.7.

2. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel raised a preliminary objection that
this petition against the impugned order
dated 17.11.2023 passed by the appellate
authority is not maintainable because the
petitioner has a remedy of revision under
Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code-
2006 (here-in-after referred as the Code2006). He relies on judgment and order
dated 12.05.2022 passed in Writ- C
No.25616 of 2021; Jhinka Devi Vs. State
of U.P. and 4 Others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner had
earlier filed Writ-B No.1072 of 2023 under
Article 226 read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and in view of the
office report, the petitioner had got
dismissed the petition on the ground that
the petition is maintainable under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. However,
subsequently while preparing the petition
he found that the petition is maintainable
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India being against the revenue authority
under the Code-2006 in view of the
judgment and order dated 03.05.2022
passed in a bunch of writ petitions, the
leading of which is Writ-B No.229 of
2023;
Dinesh
Chandra
@
Dinesh
Chandra Tiwari and Others, therefore
the petitioner has filed this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further in regard to the preliminary
objection submits that the petitioner had
filed the first appeal under Section 207 read
with Section 24 (4) of the Code-2006 and
the first appeal against the order passed
under Section 24 is maintainable under
Section 207. It is also provided in the 3rd
schedule that against an order passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, under Section 24 in
regard to boundary and boundary marks,
the first appeal is maintainable as provided
in column-4. Therefore, the appeal was
rightly filed in accordance with law, which
has wrongly and illegally been dismissed
on the ground that it has been filed in a
wrong provision with liberty to the
petitioner
to
file
under
the
correct
provision.
Therefore,
since
only
the
question of law, as to whether the first
appeal under Section 207 against an order
passed under section 24 of code-2006 is
maintainable or not, is involved, which is
not disputed by learned counsel for the
respondents, therefore instead of relegating
to the alternative remedy of revision, this
issue may be decided by this Court.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel
without
disputing
the
maintainability of writ petition under
Article 226 submits that the impugned
order has rightly been passed in accordance
with law because the remedy of appeal is
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provided under Sub-section (4) of Section
24 of Code- 2006, therefore the first appeal
under Section 207 is not provided. Learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 also argued
the same.

6. Having considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records.

7. A coordinate Bench of this Court,
in the case of Dinesh Chandra @ Dinesh
Chandra Tiwari and Others (Supra) has
held that the orders being passed by the
revenue
authority
or
consolidation
authority are not the orders passed by
judicial authority/ Civil Courts, therefore,
rejected
the
preliminary
objection
regarding maintainability of the writ
petitions
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution
of
India.
The
relevant
paragraph 27 is extracted here-in-below:-

"27. Accordingly, considering the
arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and the judgments so placed, which
have been considered herein above, I am of
the considered opinion that the orders
being passed by the revenue authority or
consolidation authority are not the orders
being passed by judicial authority/Civil
Courts,
therefore,
the
preliminary
objections so raised by the learned counsel
for
the
opposite
parties
regarding
maintainability of the writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
hereby rejected. These writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging
the
orders
of
the
consolidation/revenue authorities are held
to be maintainable."

8. In view of above, this petition
under Article 226 is maintainable being
against
an
order
passed
by
revenue/appellate authority under Code-
2006.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise
and
Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority
and
Others;
2023
SCC
OnLine SC 95, has held that where the
controversy is a purely legal one and it
does not involve disputed questions of fact
but only question of law, then it should be
decided by the high court instead of
dismissing the writ petition on the ground
of an alternative remedy being available.
The relevant paragraphs 6 to 8 are extracted
here-in-below:-

"6. At the end of the last century,
this Court in paragraph 15 of the its
decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1
(Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others) carved
out the exceptions on the existence whereof
a Writ Court would be justified in
entertaining a writ petition despite the
party approaching it not having availed the
alternative remedy provided by the statute.
The same read as under:

(i) where the writ petition seeks
enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights;

(ii) where there is violation of
principles of natural justice;

(iii) where the order or the
proceedings
are
wholly
without
jurisdiction; or

(iv) where the vires of an Act is
challenged.

7. Not too long ago, this Court in
its decision reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
12 All. Qamar Abbas Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. & Ors.
661
SC 884 (Assistant Commissioner of State
Tax vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited) has
reiterated the same principles in paragraph
11.

8. That apart, we may also
usefully refer to the decisions of this Court
reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of
Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe
Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of
India vs. State of Haryana). What appears
on a plain reading of the former decision is
that whether a certain item falls within an
entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure
question of law and if investigation into
facts is unnecessary, the high court could
entertain a writ petition in its discretion
even though the alternative remedy was not
availed
of;
and,
unless
exercise
of
discretion is shown to be unreasonable or
perverse, this Court would not interfere. In
the latter decision, this Court found the
issue raised by the appellant to be
pristinely legal requiring determination by
the high court without putting the appellant
through the mill of statutory appeals in the
hierarchy. What follows from the said
decisions is that where the controversy is a
purely legal one and it does not involve
disputed questions of fact but only
questions of law, then it should be decided
by the high court instead of dismissing the
writ petition on the ground of an
alternative remedy being available."

10. In view of above law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also admitted
to the parties that only question of law is
involved in this petition, it is being
entertained, instead of relegating to the
alternative remedy, and this Court proceeds
to decide it considering the rival contentions.

11. The petitioner had filed an
application under Section 24 of the Code2006 for demarcation of Gata No.1882/
area 0.0570 hec. of Village- Nasirabad,
Pargana- Rokha, Tehsil- Salon, District-
Raibareli. The application was disposed of by
means of the order dated 30.09.2023 and
dismissed accepting the demarcation report.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal
under Section 207 read with Section 24 (4) of
the Code-2006. The Appeal No.3045 of 2023
has been dismissed by means of the impugned
order dated 17.11.2023 contained in annexure
no.1 to the petition on the ground that the
appeal against an order passed under Section
24 of the Code-2006 is not maintainable under
Section 207 of the Code-2006 in accordance
with law. The liberty has also been granted to
the petitioner to file the appeal under the
appropriate provision.

12. In view of above, the issue for
consideration in the case in hand is as to
whether an order passed under Section 24
can be challenged in first appeal filed under
Section 207 or not.

13. Section 24 of code- 2006 provides
the disputes regarding boundaries, which is
extracted here-in-below:-

"24.
Disputes
regarding
boundaries. - (1) The Sub-Divisional
Officer may, on his own motion or on an
application made in this behalf by a person
interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any
dispute regarding boundaries on the basis
of existing survey maps or, where they have
been revised in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on
the basis of such maps, but if this is not
possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on
the basis of actual possession.

(2) If in the course of an inquiry
into a dispute under sub-section (1), the
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sub-Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession
or if it is shown that possession has been
obtained by wrongful dispossession of the
lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer
shall14 (a) in the first case, ascertain by
summary inquiry who is the person best
entitled to the property, and shall put such
person in possession;

(b) in the second case, put the
person so dispossessed in possession, and
for that purpose use or cause to be used
such force as may be necessary and shall
then fix the boundary accordingly.

(3) Every proceeding under this
section shall, as far as possible, be
concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer
within three months from the date of the
application.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer may
prefer an appeal before the Commissioner
within thirty days of the date of such order.
[The order of the Commissioner shall,
subject to the provisions of Section 210, be
final]."

14. Section 24 (4) of the Code-2006
provides that any person aggrieved by the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer may
prefer an appeal before the Commissioner
within thirty days of the date of order. By
means of the amendment made w.e.f.
10.03.2019 vide U.P. Revenue Code
(Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.7 of
2019), it has been provided that "the order
of the Commissioner shall, subject to the
provisions of Section 210 be final".

15. Section 210 provides that the
Board or the Commissioner may call for
the record of any suit or proceeding
decided by any sub-ordinate Revenue
Court in which no appeal lies. The Board
has been inserted in this Section by
means of the U.P. Act No.4 of 2016,
therefore the order passed on appeal
under Section 24 (4) of the Code-2006 by
the Commissioner is subject to the order
passed by the Board under Section 210 of
the Code- 2006. Section 210 is extracted
here-in-below:-

"210 Power to call for the
records.-(1)
The
Board
or
the
Commissioner may call for the record of
any suit or proceeding decided by any
sub-ordinate Revenue Court in which no
appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying
itself or himself as to the legality or
propriety of any order passed in such suit
or proceeding, and if such subordinate
Court appears to have-

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law; or

(b)
failed
to
exercise
a
jurisdiction of vested; or

(c) acted in the exercise of such
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity;
the
Board,
or
the
Commissioner, as the case may be, may
pass such order in the case as it or he
thinks fit.

(2) If an application under this
section has been moved by any person
either
to
the
Board
or
to
the
Commissioner, no further application by
the same person shall be entertained by the
other of them.

(3) No application under this
section shall be entertained after the expiry
of a period of sixty days from the date of
12 All. Qamar Abbas Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. & Ors.
663
the order sought to be revised or from the
date of commencement of this Code,
whichever is later."

16. Section 207 of the Code-2006
provides the first appeal. It provides that any
party aggrieved by a final order or decree
passed in any suit, application or proceeding
specified in column 2 of the Third Schedule,
may prefer a first appeal to the court or
officer specified against it in column 4, where
such order or decree was passed by a Court or
officer specified against it in column 3
thereof. Sub-Section 2 of Section 207
provides the other orders against which the
first appeal can be filed and the subsection(3) provides the limitation. Section
207 is extracted here-in-below:-

"207 First appeal. - (1) Any
party aggrieved by a final order or decree
passed
in
any
suit,
application
or
proceeding specified in column 2 of the
Third Schedule, may prefer a first appeal to
the court or officer specified against it in
column 4, where such order or decree was
passed by a Court or officer specified
against it in column 3 thereof.

(2) A first appeal shall also lie
against an order of nature specified-

(a) in section 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908; or

(b) in section 104 of the said
Code; or

(c) in Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the
First Schedule to the said Code.

(3) The period of limitation for
filing a first appeal under this section shall
be thirty days from the date of the order or
decree appealed against."

17. Section 208 provides that where
in any suit, application or proceeding
specified in column 2 of the Third
Schedule, any final order or decree is
passed in any first appeal filed under
section 207, and any party to such appeal is
aggrieved by it, such party may prefer a
second appeal to the Court specified
against it in column 5. Section 208 is
extracted here-in-below:-

"208 Second Appeal.- (1) Where
in any suit, application or proceeding
specified in column 2 of the Third
Schedule, any final order or decree is
passed in any first appeal filed under
section 207, and any party to such appeal
is aggrieved by it, such party may prefer a
second appeal to the Court specified
against it column 5.

(2) The Appellate Court shall not
entertain a second appeal unless it is
satisfied that the case involves a substantial
question of law.

(3) The period of limitation for
filing a second appeal under this section
shall be ninety days from the date of the
order or decree appealed against."

18. In view of above, against an order
passed in first appeal filed under Section
207 the second appeal is maintainable
under Section 208 and it can be filed,
whereas the second appeal is not provided
against an order passed on appeal filed
under Section 24 (4) of the Code- 2006,
therefore, merely because the name of the
appellate authority has been given in
column 4 of the third schedule, it can not
be said that first appeal under Section 207
is maintainable against the order passed
under Section 24 by the Sub-Divisional
Officer. It appears that since there was only
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4th column of first appeal, therefore the
designation of the authority to whom the
appeal is to be filed against the order
passed by the authority given in the
column-3 has been given.

19. Admittedly the order under
Section 24 of Code-2006 in regard to the
boundary and boundary marks had been
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
which
was
challenged
before
the
Commissioner in appeal with the title
"Appeal under Section 207, read with
Section 24(4) of the U.P. Land Revenue
Code- 2006 .......", whereas this Court is of
the view that the first appeal under Section
207 could not have been filed against an
order passed under Section 24 because a
specific provision has been made under
Section 24 (4) for filing the appeal against
an order passed under Section 24 by the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
to
the
Commissioner.

20. The schedule refers to Section
206, 207 and 208. Section 206 (1) provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in
any law for the time being in force, but
subject to the provisions of this Code, no
Civil Court shall entertain any suit,
application or proceeding on any matter
which the State Government, the Board,
any Revenue Court or revenue Officer is,
by or under this Code, empowered to
determine, decide or dispose of. Section
206 (2)(b) provides that no Court other than
the revenue Court or the revenue officer
specified in column 3 of the Third Schedule
shall entertain any suit, application or
proceeding specified in column 2 thereof,
therefore it is apparent that in view of this
sub-section, it has been given in the third
scheduled that the Sub-Divisional Officer
can pass the order under Section 24 in
regard to boundary and boundary marks
and consequently the designation of the
appellate authority in column-4. Section
206 of Code- 2006 is extracted here-inbelow:-

"206- Jurisdiction of civil Courts
and revenue courts. - (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, but subject to the provisions
of this Code, no Civil Court shall entertain
any suit, application or proceeding to
obtain a decision or order on any matter
which the State Government,

the Board, any Revenue Court or
revenue Officer is, by or under this Code,
empowered to determine, decide or dispose
of.

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of sub-section
(1), and save as otherwise expressly
provided by or under this Code-

(a) no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction over any of the matters
specified in the Second Schedule; and

(b) no Court other than the
revenue Court or the revenue officer
specified in column 3 of the Third Schedule
shall entertain any suit, application or
proceeding specified in column 2 thereof.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Code, an objection that a
Court or officer mentioned in sub-section
(2)(b) had or had no jurisdiction with
respect
to
any
suit,
application
or
proceeding, shall not be entertained by any
appellate, revisional or executing Court,
unless the objection was taken before the
Court or officer of the first instance, at the
earliest opportunity, and in all cases where
issues are settled at or before such
12 All. Qamar Abbas Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) I, Lko. & Ors.
665
settlement, and unless there has been a
consequent failure of justice."

21. This Court, in the case of Jhinka
Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others;
Writ- C No.25616 of 2021 by means of
the
judgment
and
order
dated
12.05.2022,
after
considering
the
amendment made in Section 24 (4) of the
Code-2006 by U.P. Act No.7 of 2019, by
which the order of the Commissioner shall
subject to the provisions of Section 210 be
final has been added, has held that the order
passed by the Commissioner in appeal
under sub-section (4) of Section 24, which
is final in the sense that there is no further
appeal there against, would be subject to
the revisional powers of the Board to be
exercised under Section 210. The Court has
further held that the objection raised on
behalf of the State respondents with regard
to the availability of a statutory remedy
against
the
order
passed
by
the
Commissioner in an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 24 of the Code, is
sustained. The relevant paragraphs- 63 to
65 of Writ- C No.25616 of 2021 are
extracted here-in-below:-

"63. It would therefore follow as
a necessary consequence that the order
passed by the Commissioner in appeal
under sub-section (4) of Section 24, which
is final in the sense that there is no further
appeal there against, would be subject to
the revisional powers of the Board to be
exercised under Section 210.

64.As regards the decision in the
case of Vijay Kumar and others (supra),
sought to be relied upon on behalf of the
petitioner, it may only be noted that the
aforestated decision, was rendered in the
context of the provisions of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act 1901, (now repealed). The
statutory scheme under the U.P. Revenue
Code, being entirely different, particularly
consequent to the amendments made in the
year 2019 whereby the order passed in an
appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 24
has been made subject to the provisions of
Section 210, the aforesaid decision would
have no applicability in the facts of the
present case.

65. Having come to the aforesaid
conclusion, the objection raised on behalf
of the State respondents with regard to the
availability of a statutory remedy against
the order passed by the Commissioner in
an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section
24 of the Code, is sustained."

22. In view of above, the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
first appeal under Section 207 can be filed
against an order passed by the SubDivisional Officer under Section 24 is
misconceived and not tenable and the
appeal against an order passed by the SubDivisional Officer under Section 24 can be
filed only under Section 24(4) of Code-
2006 before the Commissioner and the
order passed by the Commissioner shall,
subject to the provision of Section 210, be
final. If the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is accepted, then the
statutory provision made in section 24(4)
regarding remedy available under section
210 will be redundant because it has not
been given in the third schedule.

23. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order dated
17.11.2023 has, rightly and in accordance
with law, been passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Judicial-I, in Case No.3045
of 2023, which does not call for any
interference. The petition is misconceived
and lacks merit.
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 666
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 15569 of 2023

Sanju ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Singh, Sri Abhishek Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Chandra Bhushan Yadav, Sri
Diwakar Singh

Election
Petition-Elections
of
Gram
Panchayat-petitioner
was
declared
electeddefeated candidate filed an election petition -
Presiding Officer directed recounting-impugnedthere are vague allegations not supported by
any evidence -once final electoral rolls are
published and elections are held -not open to be
challenged by anyone in an election petition on
the ground that the electoral roll was defective
as names of minors or dead persons have been
included-order of recounting cannot be passed
without specifying any particular irregularity in
counting -impugned dated 15.04.2023 illegal-
no justification nor prima facie satisfaction
recorded.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mahendra Pal Vs Shri Ram Dass Malanger &
ors., (2002) 3 SCC 457

2. Ram Adhar Singh Vs District Judge, Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 11079 of 1983
3. Surendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 3701 of 2011

4. Ram Adhar Singh Vs District Judge, Ghazipur
& ors., 1986 (2) RD 151 (FB)

5. Bhabi Vs Sheo Govind & ors., AIR 1975 SC
2117

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. List is revised. None appears on
behalf of respondent no. 4. As per office
report dated 25.10.2023, service upon
respondent nos. 5 & 6 is sufficient, but no
one has put in appearance on their behalf
even in the revised call, as also learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 is not
present. Learned Standing Counsel for the
State is present.

2. On 16.05.2023 following order was
passed by this Court:

"Heard Sri Shailendra Singh
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
V.K.Singh, learned senior counsel assisted
by Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 and the learned standing
counsel for the respondents.

Present writ petition has been
filed against the order dated 15.4.2023 by
which recounting of votes has been
ordered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was declared
winning candidate in the election of Gram
Panchayat, Amdariya therefore respondent
no.4 filed an election petition with a prayer
for recounting of votes which is covered
under section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act. In support thereof he relief upon
paragraph nos. 8,9 an 10 of the judgment of