KHAJANCHI LAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 15 OTHERS
WRIC/6319/2025 · 2025-03-03
Manish Kumar Nigam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25159 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25159 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30561 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6319 of 2025 Petitioner :- Khajanchi Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Vir Jaiswal,Harsh Vikram Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"I. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records of the case quash the orders dated 16/02/2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F/R) Sambhal in case number 871/2022(D202213740000871) Khajanchi lal and others versus Vijaypal Singh and others (Annexure no.6) And 30/12/2024 passed by the additional Commissioner IInd Moradabad division Moradabad in revision number 506/2023 Khajanchi lal and others versus Vijay pal Singh and others (annexure number 8)."
3. The application filed by the petitioners under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected on the ground that the application ought to have been filed under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but the same has been filed under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and therefore, the same is not maintainable. The revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed and the order passed by the Additional Collector has been confirmed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel could not support this order as the
order is wholly erroneous and depicts that authorities below, who are deciding the revision as well as proceedings have no knowledge of law. Mere mentioning of wrong section in an application does not result in dismissal of the application
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and both the impugned orders are quashed.
6. The Additional District Magistrate (F/R) Sambhal-respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the
petitioners afresh, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad