Statutory Appeal under Section 67(5) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to be Exhausted; Interim Relief to be Sought from Appellate Authority

1. Introduction

The decision in Masjid Shareef Gosulbara Ravan Bujurg And Another v. State Of Up And 5 Others (Allahabad High Court, decided on 04-10-2025 by Hon’ble Dinesh Pathak, J.) arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class/Tehsildar, Sambhal.

During hearing, the petitioners chose to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Collector concerned. A further issue arose regarding whether the High Court should grant interim protection after permitting withdrawal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the petitioners’ request, with liberty to pursue the alternative remedy available under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
  • The State did not oppose the request for withdrawal.
  • On interim protection, the Court held that petitioners may move an appropriate interim application before the appellate court.
  • The Court directed that any such interim application should be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by the High Court’s order.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment, as recorded, does not cite any precedent or prior case law by name. The outcome is instead anchored in the Court’s acceptance of the petitioners’ election to pursue the statutory appellate forum provided by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Although brief, the order reflects two well-settled judicial approaches:

  1. Deference to statutory remedies: Once the petitioners themselves sought to withdraw the writ petition to avail the remedy under Section 67(5), the Court permitted withdrawal and confined itself to ensuring that the statutory route remains available. Importantly, the order does not examine the merits of the impugned order dated 02.09.2025.
  2. Interim relief should ordinarily be sought from the forum seized of merits: After withdrawal, the High Court declined to craft interim protection on its own and instead directed the petitioners to approach the appellate authority. This preserves procedural discipline: the authority that will hear the appeal is best placed to weigh urgency, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm in the context of the record and statutory scheme.

The Court also inserted a protective clarification: the appellate court must consider any interim application independently and uninfluenced by the High Court’s withdrawal order—ensuring the petitioners are not prejudiced merely because they initially approached the writ court.

3.3 Impact

The practical significance of this order lies less in doctrinal novelty and more in procedural guidance in Section 67 litigation:

  • Reinforcement of the statutory appellate path: Parties aggrieved by orders under the Section 67 framework are reminded that the Code provides a specific appellate remedy (here noted as under Section 67(5) before the Collector concerned), which should be used—especially when the party itself seeks to do so.
  • Interim protection channelled to the appellate forum: Litigants who withdraw writ petitions to file statutory appeals should ordinarily seek interim orders from the appellate authority rather than expecting continuing protective directions from the High Court.
  • Non-prejudicial withdrawal: The direction that the appellate authority decide interim relief “on its own merits” and “without being influenced” mitigates the risk of an adverse inference from the writ withdrawal.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ petition (Article 226)
A constitutional remedy allowing High Courts to review governmental action. It is discretionary, meaning the High Court can decline to entertain it, particularly where another effective remedy exists.
Alternative / statutory remedy
A remedy (like an appeal) provided by statute. Courts often prefer that litigants use these remedies first, because the statute creates a specialized decision-making and review structure.
Dismissed as withdrawn
The court does not decide the dispute on merits; it closes the case because the petitioner chooses not to pursue it, typically to pursue another legal route.
Interim protection (interim relief)
Temporary relief (such as a stay) granted to prevent irreparable harm while the main case/appeal is pending. Here, the High Court indicated the proper forum for such relief is the appellate authority hearing the appeal.
“Without being influenced” direction
A safeguard instructing the next forum to decide independently, ensuring the High Court’s procedural order does not prejudice the merits or interim assessment.

5. Conclusion

Masjid Shareef Gosulbara Ravan Bujurg And Another v. State Of Up And 5 Others is a concise procedural order emphasizing that where the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides a statutory appeal under Section 67(5), litigants may be directed (or, as here, permitted at their request) to pursue that remedy, and that interim relief should be sought from the appellate authority. The Court’s added clarification—that the appellate court must decide interim prayers on their own merits and uninfluenced by the withdrawal—ensures fairness while reinforcing the primacy of the statutory framework.