Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 126010 (ALL)

RAJ BAHADUR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UNNAO AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/2034/2025 · 2025-03-03

Jaspreet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2034 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raj Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma,Harendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that against the order impugned dated 31.12.2024 passed in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal, hence, the petition may not be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he has an alternate statutory remedy but the fact remains that the petitioner is in possession and his possession is being disturbed so also he has his standing crops which may be adversely affected and for the said reasons, the petition may be entertained. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and finds that apparently, the order of mutation was passed on 31.12.2024. It is not disputed that the petitioner has adequate statutory remedy of filing an appeal. The record also indicates that the petitioner has already filed a suit seeking cancellation of will and injunction before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purva, District Unnao which is pending since 10.12.2015. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and he has a statutory remedy of an appeal under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition which is dismissed solely on the ground of availability of statutory remedy. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and in case if the petitioner exercises his right of alternate remedy, the matter shall be considered by the court concerned on its own merit. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench