Allahabad High Court
SANGEETA DEVIversusSTATE 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, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangeeta Devi, filed a writ petition under certiorari challenging an order dated 20‑11‑2025 passed by a revenue officer under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner sought quashing of the order. The respondent’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 because an alternative statutory remedy was available, the writ petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy under law. No substantive merits of the order were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under certiorari is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision or appeal against the impugned order
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 34
Subjects
- certiorari
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- revision
- appeal
- U.P. Revenue Code
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17313 of 2026
Sangeeta Devi
.....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. 9703 of 2025 bearing its
Computer Case No. T202511170609703 (Sangeeta Vs. Annu) 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…