Dwarika Prasad And 4 Others vs Addl Commissioner Devi Patan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11966 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5834 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Dwarika Prasad And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- Addl Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prakash Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2 on caveat.

Under challenge is the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, District Gonda whereby the operation of the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Appellate Court has been stayed while entertaining the revision preferred by the private respondent no.2 fixing 01.09.12022.

The matter in question relates to the property left behind by one Jagannath who is said to have expired in the year 1993.

The petitioners are claiming right in the said property being Pattidar of deceased Jagannath. The respondent no.2 claims to be the daughter of Jagannath and also that she has a Will executed by her father in her favour.

It has also pointed out that private respondents no.3 to 10 are the nephews of Jagannath and they are also claiming rights in the property in question. In the first round of litigation, the matter had come up before this Court wherein by means of judgment dated 21.01.2014 in Writ Petition No.433 (Cons.) of 1998, the Court finding that there was no legal heirs of Jagannath had directed the property to be vested in the State in terms of Section 189 (a) of the U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act. This order came to be challenged before the Apex Court wherein the Special Leave Petition which was preferred by Madhav Raj the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents no.3 to 10, which was dismissed. Thereafter the private respondent no.2 had preferred a review against the judgment dated 21.01.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.433 (Cons.) of 1998. The review application of the private respondent no.2 came to be allowed by means of order dated 28.10.2015 and the order of the writ court was modified to the extent that the title of Smt. Raj Rani was to be decided by the appropriate court.

Admittedly, the title of the private respondent no.2 has not been decided by the Court. The mutation proceedings are already pending before the appropriate court. Even by means of the impugned order, the revisional court has merely entertained the revision fixing 01.09.2022 and till then the operation of the order dated 06.05.2022 has been stayed. In the aforesaid backdrop, since the order impugned is purely interlocutory in nature and the petitioners as well as the respondents are at liberty to agitate their rights before the appropriate forum which can be appropriately decided.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.8.2022

ank