Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Revenue ... on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9676 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Revenue Deptt. And Civil Sectt. Thru. Collector 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Sri Ashutosh Dhar Dubey, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.5, which is taken on record.
Heard.
By means of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the opposite party No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Milkipur, District-Ayodhya in Appeal No. 7431 of 2022 (Anantram Vs. Vinod Kumar & Others), Computerized Case No. T202204230407431, under Section 35(2) of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.
For the purposes of maintainability of the present petition as also seeking interim protection, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 was passed in Appeal No. 7431 of 2022, which was filed by the respondent No.5-Anant Ram assailing/impeaching the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Mutation Case No. T2021042303500 filed under Section 34 of the Code of 2006 that too without condoning the delay, though, an application for condonation of delay was preferred alongwith the appeal. He stated that no order could have been passed by the authority concerned without condoning the delay. In this regard, a reference has been made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ram Prakash vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Others, decided on 03.02.2022 as also to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Noharlal Verma vs. Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445. Prayer is to interfere in the matter.
Opposing the present petition, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey stated that in view of statutory remedy available to the petitioners assailing the order impugned dated 23.11.2022 in the present petition, the same is not maintainable. Regarding statutory remedy, he pointed out that the petitioners have remedy to assail the order impugned dated 23.11.2022 by means of revision under Section 210 of Code of 2006. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court dated 13.04.2015 passed Writ Petition No. 3301 (M/S) of 2006. He also stated that other remedies are also available to the petitioners which are under Section 299 of the Code of 2006 and para 492 of the U.P. Land Records Mannual. On this aspect of the case, he further stated that under these provisions, the petitioners can prefer an application for recall of the order dated 23.11.2022 as also for setting aside the same. He also stated that it is settled principle of law that if the statutory remedy is available to the party concerned then in that event the Writ Court should not entertain the petition. In this regard, reliance has been placed to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 433.
The statutory remedy as indicated by the State counsel has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including the availability of statutory remedy to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedy as available to them under law, which if availed shall be concluded, expeditiously.
Order Date :- 16.1.2023
Vinay/-
