Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3673 of 2018 Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Tripathi,Chunnu Prasad Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The office has reported that this writ petition is beyond time by 226 days. In paragraph-12 of the writ petition the petitioner has explained the delay sufficiently. Hence, the delay is condoned.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 08th June, 2017 without taking recourse to the alternative remedy provided under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, "the Act").
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the petitioner has filed this writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Section 48 of the Act after insertion of Explanation (3) therein by way of amendment by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to decide the question of facts and law both.
The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled that in case there is statutory remedy available, the High Court ordinarily should not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 2 SCC 782, and Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to file a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In case revision is filed within fifteen days, the Deputy Director of Consolidation will not dismiss the revision on the ground of limitation and he will decide it on merit.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018/SKT/-