# Ramavtar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1201
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3049 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramavtar-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-52021
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India1950 - Art.
226 - Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy -
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 24 -
Disputes regarding Boundaries - Revision
before Board of Revenue u/s 210 -
Impugned order passed by Commissioner
in appeal u/s 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue
Code
-
Availability
of
an
effective
alternative statutory remedy of revision
u/s 210 before the Board of Revenue - Writ
petition dismissed on ground of alternative
remedy (Paras 10, 14)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Ramavtar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1201
(2024) 5 ILRA 1201
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 3049 of 2024

Ramavtar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Samarath Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India1950 - Art.
226 - Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy -
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 24 -
Disputes regarding Boundaries - Revision
before Board of Revenue u/s 210 -
Impugned order passed by Commissioner
in appeal u/s 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue
Code
-
Availability
of
an
effective
alternative statutory remedy of revision
u/s 210 before the Board of Revenue - Writ
petition dismissed on ground of alternative
remedy (Paras 10, 14)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jhinka Devi Vs State of U.P. & ors., Writ-C No.
25616 of 2021.

2. Sant Lal Gupta Vs Modern Corporation Group
Housing Society Ltd., 2010 (13) SCC 334.

3. C.P. Upadhyay Vs Chairman and M.D. Power
Grid & ors., 2017 (121) ALR 69

4. PHR Invent Educational Society Vs UCO Bank
& ors., Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2024 (arising out of
SLP (C) No. 8867 of 2022).

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

1. Heard Shri Avanees Kumar Rai
under the authority of Samarth Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. Considering the nature of the
order that is proposed to be passed, the
service of notice upon private respondent
Nos. 3 to 12 is being dispensed with.

3. The writ petition arises out of
proceedings under Section 24 (4) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 and is directed against
the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in appeal
No. 257 of 2022 by the Commissioner
(Administration) Varanasi Division, Varanasi
in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and
whereunder the appeal has been dismissed
upholding the order dated 4.2.2022 passed by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chakiya,
District Chandauli under Section 24 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.

4. Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned
Addl. Chief Standing Counsel at the very out
set submits that the order impugned passed by
the learned Commissioner in appeal under
Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
has been made subject to the provisions of
Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
and finality to the order passed under Section
210 has been attached. He submits that the
issue has already been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.
25616 of 2021 (Jhinka Devi versus State of
U.P. and 4 others). In paras 48 & 49 of the
aforesaid decision, the Court has held as
under:-

48. The mere fact that there is no
further appeal against the order passed by
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Commissioner in an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 24 would not be held
to create a bar in invocation of the revisional
jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under
section 210 of the Code. The jurisdiction
conferred on the Board under Section 210 to
revise the orders passed by the subordinate
revenue courts would not be dependent on a
motion being made by a party to the case
inasmuch as the section confers power upon
the Board to exercise revisional jurisdiction
independent of any such motion having been
made. The fact that a right of appeal is not
given to the party concerned would
therefore not be held to affect the
jurisdiction vested in the Board under
Section 210.
49. The provision under sub-section
(4) of Section 24, as it existed, prior to the
amending Act of 2019, that "the order of the
Commissioner
shall
be
final"
would
therefore be held to mean no more than that
the order passed in appeal under subsection (4) would not be subject to any
second appeal. The provision with regard to
finality attached to the order of the
Commissioner under sub-section (4) would
not in any manner be held to limit or control
the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon
the Board under Section 210.

5. It is, thus, submitted that in the
wake of availability of alternate remedy, the
writ petition may not be entertained and the
petitioner be relegated to the statutory
alternate remedy available.

6. The submissions of Shri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel have been refuted by
learned counsel for the petitioner by
submitting that the alternate remedy as
stated by the learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel may not be treated to be an
absolute bar inasmuch as the power of this
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India cannot be curtailed
in view of the patent illegality committed
by the Appellate Authority while passing
the impugned order in exercise of powers
under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. He has invited the attention of
this Court to the impugned order dated
30.11.2023 to demonstrate that no reasons
whatsoever have been stated for rejecting
the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order dated 4.2.2022 passed
under Section 24 of the Code. He submits
that the Appellate Authority has merely
stated that the order dated 4.2.2022 was a
reasoned order passed in accordance with
law, which was not liable to be interfered
in appeal and accordingly, proceed to
reject the appeal.

7. In order to buttress his
submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta
versus
Modern,
Corporation
Group
Housing Society Ltd., reported in 2010
(13) SCC 334, in which, in paragraph 27 it
has been laid down as under:-

"27. It is settled legal proposition
that not only administrative but also judicial
orders must be supported by reasons
recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue,
the Court is bound to give reasons for its
conclusion. IT is the duty and obligation on
the part of the Court to record reasons while
disposing of the case. The hallmark of order
and exercise of judicial power by a judicial
forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons
by itself and giving of reasons has always
been
insisted
upon as
one
of
the
fundamentals of sound administration of the
justice delivery system, to make it known
that there had been proper and due
application of mind to the issue before the
5 All. Ramavtar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1203
Court and also as an essential requisite of
the principles of natural justice.
3....... The giving of reasons for a
decision is an essential attribute of judicial
and judicious disposal of the matter before
Courts, and which is the only indication to
know about the manner and quality of
exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the
Court concerned had really applied its
mind."
The reasons is that the heartbeat of
every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, the order
becomes
lifeless.
Reasons
substitute
subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of
reasons
rendered
an
order
indefensible/unsustainable particular when
the order is subject to further challenge
before a higher forum. Recording of reasons
is the principle of natural justice and every
judicial order must be supported by reasons
recorded in writing. It ensures transparency
and fairness in decision making. The person
who is adversely affected must know any his
application has been rejected."

8. Further reliance has been placed
upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of C.P. Upadhyay
versus Chairman and M.D. Power Grid
and others reported in 2017 (121) ALR 69
to submit that reasons are the soul of an
order and in its absence such order is
rendered lifeless. In the said case, the coordinate Bench after considering various
decisions of the Apex Court that the
appellate order assailed therein did not
contain the reasons and having found that
the order of the Appellate Authority did not
stand the test of judicial scrutiny, set aside
the order and remitted back the matter to the
Appellate Authority for consideration of the
petitioner's appeal, strictly in accordance
with law, keeping in view the legal
parameters settled for the purpose, some of
which were referred to in the order.

9. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently argued that the
order of the Appellate Authority does not
contain any reasons and as such, is liable to
be set aside and the matter be remitted back
for consideration afresh.

10. Having heard the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused
the record as also the decisions cited at bar
and agreeing with the proposition of law laid
down therein, this Court is faced with the
issue as to entertain the writ petition in the
wake of existence of a statutory remedy to
assail the orders impugned. Further, the Court
finds that the writ petition in the case cited was
entertained as the orders impugned therein had
attained finality and there was no statutory
remedy available. The position in the case at
hand is different. The petitioner has an
alternate statutory remedy to assail the order of
the Appellate Authority in revision.

11. Recently 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,
after considering various judgments in Para
29 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;
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

12. In Para 30 of the aforesaid
judgment, the Apex Court has however
clarified that the High Court will not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, if an effective
alternative remedy is available to the
aggrieved person or the statute under which
the action complained of has been taken
itself contains a mechanism for redressal of
grievance. Paragraph 30 of the aforesaid
decision is quoted hereunder:-

"30. It has however been clarified
that the High Court will not entertain a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India if an effective
alternative remedy is available to the
aggrieved person or the statute under which
the action complained of has been taken
itself contains a mechanism for redressal of
grievance."

13. In the opinion of the Court, the
present case does not fall in any of the
exceptions as carved out by the Apex Court
in Paragraph 29. Observation made in Para
30, however, is binding.

14. In view of the above, since the
petitioner has an effective alternate remedy
of assailing the order dated 30.11.2023
passed in Appeal No. 257 of 2022 under
Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, the Court is not inclined to entertain
the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed
on the ground of alternate remedy .
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1204
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 4268 of 1984

Asharfi Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Iii A.D.J. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
L.K. Davey, Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, R.C. Shukla,
Rishi Bhushan Jauhari

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
S.C.

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section
5(3)(b)
-
No
Distinction
between
Minor
and
Major
Family
Members
for
Additional
Land
Entitlement - A tenure holder with up to
five family members can retain 7.30
hectares of irrigated land - In addition,
for each family member exceeding five,
and for each adult son, the tenure
holder
can
retain
two
additional
hectares of irrigated land, subject to a
maximum of six hectares - Section
5(3)(b) does not differentiate between
major and minor members of the family
- term "family," as defined in Section
3(7),
includes
the
tenure
holder's
spouse,
minor
sons,
and
minor
daughters - Therefore, even if a family
member is a minor, they are entitled to
two additional hectares of land if the
family size exceeds five (Paras 16, 17).

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, Section
10(2) - The number of family members is to
be considered on the date of the notice
under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960, and
not on the date of the introduction of the
amending Act (Para 19).

Allowed. (E-5)