Court Rules that Special Appeal against Writ Court's Judgment Not Maintainable Due to Pending Statutory Revision
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, sitting as a Division Bench in Lucknow, dismissed a special appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others against a judgment passed by the writ court in the case of State of U.P. v. Savitri Sonkar. The court held that the special appeal was not maintainable, aligning with the principles set out in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
The case revolves around an order dated February 10, 2025, passed by a Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The order had already been challenged by the respondent, Savitri Sonkar, through a statutory revision before the Board of Revenue, numbered as Revision No. 2645 of 2025. The pendency of this revision rendered the writ petition and the subsequent special appeal invalid, as per the court’s interpretation.
During the proceedings, the court was presented with a preliminary objection by the counsel for the respondents, arguing that the special appeal was untenable since the order was already under challenge in a statutory revision. The Bench, comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, emphasized that the bar/exclusionary clause of Rule 5 was indeed applicable as the Sub Divisional Magistrate was acting as a court under a state enactment.
The High Court scrutinized the writ petition's relief clause, which sought to quash the impugned order and demanded compensation for an alleged unlawful demolition. The court found these requests unsustainable due to the ongoing revision proceedings. Furthermore, the court noted the delay in filing the writ petition, as the alleged demolition occurred on March 21, 2025, yet the petition was only filed in December 2025.
In its judgment, the court also addressed the issue of interim relief, ordering a status quo on the land/property in question until the next date of listing. The cost imposed by the learned Single Judge was kept in abeyance, and the pending revision before the Board of Revenue was instructed not to be disposed of without further court orders.
The decision highlights the court’s adherence to procedural norms and underscores the importance of maintaining judicial discipline when orders are already under statutory review. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that appeals and petitions are appropriately routed and adjudicated in accordance with established legal frameworks.
Bottom Line:
Special Appeal not maintainable against the judgment of the writ court when the impugned order, passed by a Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 38(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, was already sub judice in a statutory revision before the Board of Revenue.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 Section 38(5), High Court Rules, 1952 Chapter VIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
State of U.P. v. Savitri Sonkar, (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2868766
