Allahabad High Court
Smt. Champa And Another vs The Commissioner And Others on 15 May, 2018
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10585 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt. Champa And Another
Respondent :- The Commissioner And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Tewari,S.S. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Barun Pratap Singh,Indra Raj Singh Yadav,M.A. Haseen
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
The petitioners are before this Court to stay effect and operation of impugned order dated 1.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda.
The record in question reflect that the present matter had been taken on 27.2.2013 and by that order the interim order has been accorded in favour of the petitioner with following effect:-
"Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The dispute relates to the mutation of name over the property of late Munni Lal. The dispute was between two widows, one Tijiya and another Dulariya. The petitioners belong to the branch of Dulariya and the respondents belong to the branch of Tijiya.
It appears, after the death of Munni Lal, on 22.5.1986, an application was moved by Tijiya for mutating her name in the revenue records, alleging herself to be the widow of late Munni Lal and another application was filed by Dulariya on 29.8.1986 for mutation of her name in the revenue records claiming herself to be the widow of late Munnil Lal. On 15.4.1996, Naib Tehsilar has allowed the mutation application filed by Tijiya. Against that order, an appeal was filed by Dulariya before the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 17.3.1997, has set aside the order dated 15.4.1996 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and remanded the matter to the Naib Tehsildar for deciding the aforesaid case after giving opportunity to the parties. After remand, vide order dated 23.12.1998, the Naib Tehsildar found that both are widows of late Munni Lal and passed an order for recording their names. Against that, Tijiya filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was allowed on 24.4.2000 and the matter was again remanded before the Naib Tehsildar with a direction to decide the matter after conducting proper enquiry by himself. After remand, the Tehsildar (Judicial), vide order dated 12.11.2002, allowed the mutation application filed by Tijiya and held that Dulariya is not widow of late Munni Lal. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2002, Dulariay filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer on 13.11.2002. This appeal was allowed on 17.3.2005 and both the persons, namely, late Tijiya and Dulariya, were found to be widows of late Munni Lal and an order was passed for recording their names.
Now, this order has attained finality and has no where been challenged. It appears, during the pendency of the appeal, both the widows died and the substitution application from both the sides of both the widows were allowed and the heirs have succeeded. After the order dated 17.3.2005, an application was filed for issuing Parwana Amal Daramad, in which objections were raised, but ignoring those objections, Parwana was issued on 20.12.2011. Against that, revision has been filed and the revisional court has set aside the previous orders.
Sri Tewari contends that once the order dated 17.3.2005 was not challenged by any of the parties, that order has become final and this order could not be set aside in a revision against the order of issuance of Parwana on the basis of order dated 17.3.2005.
The matter requires scrutiny.
Issue notice.
Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Sri Anuj Kumar has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3. Therefore, notices need not be served again to respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Issue notice to respondent nos. 4 and 5 through registered post returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within two weeks.
List this case on the date fixed by the Office in the notice.
In the meantime, counter affidavit, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the respondents.
As an interim measure, without prejudice to right and contention of the parties, the proceedings pursuant to the order of Divisional Commissioner in revision no. 67 of 2011-12 may go on before the court below, but the final judgement shall not be delivered till the next date of listing."
In this back drop, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly accepted that the aforesaid revision is pending consideration but the same has not been finalized still today.
Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent raised an objection that on account of pendency of the present writ petition, the revision has not been decided and he has consented that in case, within time bound scheme, the revision is decided then State has no objection for maintaining the status-quo till the disposal of the revision.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that even though the order impugned is outcome of proceeding under Section 33/34, which is summary in nature, and the writ petition is not maintainable. Even while entertaining the writ petition, the Court had consciously asked to the Revisional Authority to decide the aforesaid Revision but no final judgement shall be delivered till the next date of listing.
As it has been informed that on account of aforesaid interim order, the Revision has not been finalized till now. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
In the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the revision which is pending consideration, Revision No. 67 of 2011/2012 is liable to be expedited by all means.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the Revisional Authority to finalize the aforesaid revision expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the production of certified copy of this order without according any adjournment to either of the parties and till the disposal of the revision no third party interest shall be created by the parties in the disputed land.
Order Date :- 15.5.2018
Neeraj
