Smt. Kalika vs The Additional Commissioner ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22819 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55573
 
Court No. - 18
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4186 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Kalika
 
Respondent :- The Additional Commissioner (Aydhoya Division) Aydhoya And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1-Additional Commissioner (Ayodhya Division), Ayodhya in Revision No.1161 of 2023, Computerized Case No.C202304000001161 filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

The opposite party No.1 by the order dated 03.05.2023, impugned herein, granted ex-parte interim order, however, the order dated 03.05.2023 on merits has not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner raised issue of maintainability of revision, in issue, on the ground that the order dated 17.04.2023 was passed in compliance of the order of Writ Court, as such, the revision was not maintainable. The maintainability of the revision has also assailed on the basis of Rule 182 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

A perusal of the prayer(s) sought in the present petition would show that the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings pending before opposite party No.1 filed by private opposite party.

The issue of maintainability of revision, in question, as per law settled, at first instance should be raised before the authority concerned. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Jacky vs. Tiny reported in (2014) 6 SCC 508.

In so far as the ex-parte interim order passed by the opposite parry No.1 is concerned, the petitioner is having remedy by preferring the application for recall of the same as provided in Para 492 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

In view of aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.8.2023/Vinay/-