Allahabad High Court
Smt. Phool Jahan And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143613 Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18553 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Phool Jahan And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil- Sadar, District- Farrukhabad to comply the order dated 21.2.2023 passed by District Magistrate Farrukhabad on the applicant of petitioner no.1 and to correct the revenue records accordingly.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Sub-Divisional Officer Tahsil- Sadar, District- Farrukhabad to correct the revenue records with respect to Gata No.406Aa/0.64 and 406Ba / 1.53 on the basis of the report dated 21.3.2023 submitted by Tahsildar, Tahsil- Sadar, District- Farrukhabad in pursuance of the directions of District Magistrate Farrukhabad so that justice be done.
iii. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed a representation in respect to their entry against the order dated 16.11.2022 was passed in Case No.12040 of 2022, under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that on the basis of the representation, a report dated 21.3.2023 was submitted by the authority which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. He next submitted that on the basis of the report submitted by the revenue authority, the petitioners' representation should be decided in favour of petitioners but the authorities have not taken any step in the matter in respect to the prayer made in the representation.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhinav Ojha, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order dated 16.11.2022 has been passed under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, petitioners can challenge the order in appeal as provided under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in respect to the relief claimed in the writ petition.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order dated 16.11.2022 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the proceeding under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, if there is any grievance against the order, petitioners can file appeal under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances, petitioners are directed to file appeal against the order dated 16.11.2022 along with the prayer for condonation of delay within period of three weeks from today. The appellate Court shall decide the appeal on merit taking liberal view on the delay condonation matter, in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal before the appellate Court.
8. With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Rameez