MUJAFFAR HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 15 OTHERS
WRIC/16076/2025 · 2025-05-26
Manish Kumar Nigam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 57136 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 57136 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91859 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16076 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mujaffar Hussain And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii,Shikha Singh 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 record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-
"To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 4 in RST/1570/2025C Case No. T-202513380101520 in between Tayyab Ali Versus Allahdiya. (B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to reconsider the restoration application of the petitioners dated 01.10.2024 specially service of notice/ summon upon the petitioners before making Kurra by h Lekhpal dated 23.08.2024. C). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commandos directing the Respondent No.6 to 16 not to make any interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over land in question of the Plot No. 103 which was allotted to them according to their share by their family settlement."
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that final decree passed in a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was ex parte against the petitioner as petitioner was not granted opportunity to file objections to the kurrah submitted by the Lekhpal. Petitioner moved an application for recalling the aforesaid orders and the said application has been rejected by the Court below.
5. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that against the
order passed rejecting his restoration application, petitioner has statutory remedy of filing a revision under the relevant provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioner can also challenge the final decree by filing an appeal.
6. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy, as available to him, under the law.
Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Rishabh [Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad