Savitri Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 27244 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191744
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32747 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Savitri Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Vrajendra Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to get Amal Daramad/Mutation of the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1998 in the revenue record within stipulated period.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to get entered the name of plaintiff/petitioner in the revenue record in view of judgment and decree dated 24.12.1998, by deleting the name of persons continued in the revenue record from the revenue record over the gata no. 1464/3/5 area 0.50 decimal and arazi no. 1464/3/2 area 0.20 decimal total land 0.70 decimal situated in Village-Kunseri @ Vishunpura, Tehsil-Nautanwa, District-Maharajganj.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner contained in representations dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure no. 6) for being entered the name of plaintiff/petitioner in the revenue record in view of judgment and decree dated 24.12.1998, by deleting the name of persons continued in the revenue record from the revenue record over the gata no. 1464/3/5 area 0.50 decimal and arazi no. 1464/3/2 area 0.20 decimal total land 0.70 decimal situated in Village-Kunseri @ Vishunpura, Tehsil-Nautanwa, District-Maharajganj."

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after a degree was passed in his favour on 24.12.1998, the revenue records were not corrected accordingly and therefore, a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondent authorities to make the necessary corrections in the revenue records.

4.Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner may approach the relevant authority under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition.

6. In case, the petitioner moves an application under Section 30(2) of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, before appropriate authority, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, provided that there is no other legal impediment in passing such order.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 5.10.2023

Ved Prakash

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)