Ram Bachan vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1622 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1622 ALL
Judgement Date : 16 January, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Ram Bachan vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 16 January, 2023

Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35063 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ram Bachan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Shrama
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for respondent No.3-Gaon Sabha.

The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by respondent No.2 in case No.09/11/2012-13 computerized Case No.T202142905483 (Bhikha and others Vs. Ram Bachan and others) under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially a suit filed by petitioner under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1996. He further submitted that contesting respondents who were not parties in the suit, have filed application on 26.10.2012 after 16 years in Case No.9/11/2012-13 and the earlier judgment and decree has been set aside as well as entry of petitioner has been expunged. He further submitted that order has been passed in arbitrary/ ex-parte manner and inordinate delay of 16 years has been condoned, as such writ petition filed by the petitioner be entertained in spite of the availability of the alternative remedy.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the land was earlier recorded as banzar and bheeta, as such the order impugned has been passed in the interest of justice and no interference is required against the impugned order.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that impugned order has been passed by the trial court in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act.

Since against the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2022 passed by trial court, remedy is available to the petitioner under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as such, writ petition cannot be entertained against the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2022.

The writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Order Date :- 16.1.2023

PS*