Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRA SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GARIMA PRASHAD
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have an efficacious remedy under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and therefore relief cannot be granted.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash the order dated 8 July 2026 that rejected their restoration application against a decree dated 8 September 2018. They argued that the impugned order was passed without considering the facts, despite an interim order staying its operation. The State contended that the petitioners have an effective remedy by filing an appeal under Section 207 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable. The Court held that no relief could be granted and directed the petitioners to approach the competent authority with an appeal and interim relief application within four weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was consigned to the record.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to quash the order rejecting the restoration application.
- Whether the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 207
Subjects
- writ petition
- Article 226
- restoration application
- U.P. Revenue Code
- appeal
- interim relief
- quashing order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33982 of 2026
Ravindra Singh And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mujtaba Shamim Akhtar, Prakash
Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following relief:
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
order dated 8.7.2026 passed in Case NO. 10029 Of 2026 (Computerized
No. T202612070310029 (Manoj Kumar Singh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh),
whereby, the petitioners' recall/ restoration application has been rejected
(Annexure: 3 to the writ petition)"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a restoration
application has been filed by the petitioner against the decree and order
8.9.2018 wherein an interim order dated 19.05.2026 has been passed in
favour of the petitioner staying the effect and operation of the order dated
8.9.2018 as well as 19.06.2019, however subsequently, the restoration
application of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order
without considering the fact and circumstances of the case.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 207
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and that the present writ petition is not
maintainable.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to
approach the competent authority by way of filing an appeal and in the
WRIC No. 33982 of 2026
2
event petitioner files an appeal along with an application seeking interim
relief within a period of four weeks from today, the competent authority
shall first consider and decide the application seeking interim relief within
a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the appeal and thereafter
make all endeavor to decide the appeal expeditiously.
6. Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition is consigned to record.
(Garima Prashad,J.)
September 8, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…