Allahabad High Court
SUDHIR KUMAR RAJAURAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision or appeal against the impugned order.
Summary
The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Rajaura, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash an order dated 20-11-2025 passed by a revenue officer under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petition alleged that the order was erroneous and sought its setting aside. The State's Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a revision or appeal against the impugned order. The Court held that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition cannot be entertained. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate revision or appeal. The certified copy of the order was to be returned to the petitioner's counsel after retaining a photocopy.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate jurisdiction of the High Court when an alternative remedy of revision or appeal is available under the statute?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 34
Subjects
- certiorari
- revision
- appeal
- alternative remedy
- writ jurisdiction
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 34
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17311 of 2026
Sudhir Kumar Rajaura
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Mishra, Devendra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature CERTIORARI quashing the
impugned orders dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure no. 2 of the writ petition)
passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 9749 of 2025 bearing its
Computer Case No. T202511170609749 (Sudhir Kumar Rajaura Vs.
Bobi) U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing revision as well as appeal
against the order impugned.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy as available to him under law.
6. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the
petitioner after retaining photo copy of the same.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 5, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…