SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who alleges himself to be the owner of the premises in question, aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2003, dated 12th July, 2004, which has been executed by the authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by order dated 27th January, 2005, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither the landlord, nor the tenant, hence according to the petitioner he has no right to file an appeal, therefore the petitioner has no remedy. I do not agree with the aforesaid contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, wherein in my opinion, the petitioner can raise his grievance against the orders passed by the prescribed authority. Section 22 of the Act, which is reproduced below, clearly demonstrate that it can be filed by any person and is not confined only to the landlord or the tenant.

(3.) In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority.