Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rinju Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16057 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Rinju Devi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The first petitioner is legal heir of late Vijay Pratap Singh. A partition suit came to be filed in respect of the property noted in the plaint, a preliminary decree came to be passed on 5.11.2012, thereafter, by the impugned order and decree dated 17.11.2012, the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhaj affirmed the partition of the property made by the Lekhpal on the spot. This order came to be challenged in revision being Revision No. 172/D/2013 (Vijay Pratap v. Sarju and three others). The second revision was filed by the second petitioner being 173/D/2013. Both the revisions came to be heard and decided by the impugned order dated 26 March 2021, by the court of second respondent-Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The partition suit was filed under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which is a regular suit to be decided and determined by the revenue court. The revisional court noted in the order that no objection was filed by the petitioners/revisionists to the preliminary decree. Lekhpal upon spot inspection divided the portions of the suit property, each plot of the share holders opening into the road.
It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the revision, on the death of co-sharer Vijay Pratap Singh, first petitioner came to be substituted. It is urged that before passing the impugned final decree dated 17.11.2012, petitioner was not heard nor her objection was considered. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the restoration application filed to recall the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2012, came to be rejected by order dated 18.2.2013 by the trial court. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred a revision which was rejected by the impugned order. It is noted in the order of the trial court, as well as, the revisional court that no objection was filed by the petitioners on the kurras prepared by the Lekhpal, further, it is noted that the second petitioner refused to accept the summons which was duly served upon him. The kurra was prepared in three parts and the property was partitioned in such a manner that all the share holders were accessible to the main road. The petitioners admit that Vijay Pratap Singh died in 2017 and he had not filed objection or challenged the preliminary decree. It is not open to the petitioners at this stage to urge that the final decree was passed without hearing them.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
No cost.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021
Mukesh Kr.
