VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Allahabad High Court 2023 › High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Disposed off/Decided on merits
Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decided
6 December 2023
Case no.
WRIC 41285/2023

Judgment

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41285 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajmohan Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶2In pith and substance, grievance of the petitioner is that the demarcation of the land in question was carried way back in the year 1990. Thereafter, when the petitioner started raising boundary-wall over his holding, the objection was made to the same on the ground that the petitioner is trying to usurp the school land. Thereafter, he moved an application for again settling the boundaries which has already been settled under Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is reflected from his own application dated 01.04.2023 appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

¶3Sri Rajmohan Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has raised an objection that the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is a self contained Act and in case proceedings for demarcation are finalized by the authorities under Section 24(3) of the Code, 2006 and petitioner is aggrieved with the same, he can invoke the appeal which is contemplated under Section 24(4) of the Code, 2006 before the Commissioner within thirty days. He submits that the said disputed fact cannot be agitated/ adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. He further raises an objection that in case there is any intervention in his property, he can file appropriate proceedings under the Code, 2006 itself.

¶4Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the petitioner has got efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as may be available to him under law.

¶5With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.12.2023 NLY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.