Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 148503 (ALL)

SURESH KUMAR DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/6202/2025 · 2025-07-04

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37905 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6202 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- "1. Issue an order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by opposite party no. 04 i.e. Chief Revenue Officer, Ayodhya in Case No. 1702/2024, Computerized Case No. D2024042300001702, Suresh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Another, under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code situated at Village - Baranpur, Pargana - Pashchimraath, Tehsil - Beekapur, District - Ayodhya (Faizabad). 2. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding opposite parties to not create any hindrance in peaceful possession of petitioner over the land in question in the interest of justice." 3. By means of impugned the application preferred by the petitioner U/S 30 of U.P. Revenue Code for correction of the map has been rejected. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of filing revision U/S 210 of U.P. Revenue Code before the Revenue Board or the Commissioner. 5. A perusal of Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code clearly indicates that with regard to any suit or proceeding decided by any sub-ordinate court in which no appeal lies, a revision U/S 210 of U.P. Revenue Code would be maintainable. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that proceeding U/S 30 of U.P. Revenue Code would be the proceedings as per "Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code" for which petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing revision. 6. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench