Allahabad High Court

Smt.Janki Devi vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), ... on 1 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25035
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4141 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Smt.Janki Devi
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Panna Lal Gupta,Saleem Ahmad Khan,Subrat Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 7.4.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and judgment and order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2, as contained as Annexure No. 1&2 respectively to this writ petition.

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1&2 not to give effect of the impugned judgment and order dated 7.4.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and judgment and order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the opposite party No. 2."

At the very outset, learned counsel for the side opposite raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition. The preliminary objection has been raised on the ground of having a statutory remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order dated 07.04.2025. He stated that in view of Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code of 2006") as amended in the year 2019, the petitioner is having a remedy of filing a revision before the Authority concerned against the impugned order dated 07.04.2025.

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that in the statute itself a mechanism for redressal of the grievance is provided, as such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. It is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Authority concerned under Section 210 of the Code of 2006.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also provided that if the remedy aforesaid is availed by the petitioner, then the Authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date of approaching the said Authority. It is in view of Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as per which, a revision or appeal should preferably be decided preferably within six months.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Arun/-