High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sheo Prasad And Another v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - C No. 37911 of 2003  RD-AH 306 (3 September 2003)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 37911 OF 2003
Sheo Prasad & anr. ------ Petitioners
State of U.P. & ors. ------ Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J
Hon'ble R.C. Pandey, J.
(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)
This writ petition has been filed, raising grievance that respondent no. 5 has acted illegally and arbitrarily in carving out the plots in the land of the petitioners and granting pattas in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 9. Against the same, an application has been filed by the petitioner before the learned District Collector (respondent no. 2), which has not yet been decided.
The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities has raised the preliminary objection that under the statutory provisions a revision is maintainable. Application filed by the petitioner contained in Annex. 5 to the writ petition, does not furnish any ground or explain fact situation, on the basis of which action can be taken. Thus, the petition cannot be entertained.
In Sheela Devi Vs. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if statute provides for remedy of revision, writ cannot be entertained.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
If the petitioner is aggrieved, he may approach the appropriate forum by presenting the required memo of appeal/revision.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.