Allahabad High Court
Smt. Takdeera vs State Of U.P.Thru. Collector ... on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10143 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Takdeera
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Collector Baharaich And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh,Mohan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Ref:- C.M.A. No. 9 of 2022
The instant application has been moved seeking disposal of the application for interim relief.
The Court has heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioners are the subsequent purchaser pendentalite in respect of the property in question.
It has been submitted that initially the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act was instituted by Sri Ram Phal against Smt. Sundari. The said suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 31.05.1994. Subsequently, an application for setting aside ex-parte decree was moved which was allowed on 10.06.2002. Against the said order Ram Phal had preferred a revision and during the pendency of the revision, the respondent in the revision i.e. Smt. Sundari had sold her share in the property vide registered sale deed dated 16.03.2012 in favour of the petitioner.
It is on the aforesaid basis that the petitioner moved an application for impleadment. The said application came to be allowed. The record further transpires that the said revision was dismissed on 15.05.2014 and thereafter the matter was alive before the S.D.O. Concerned for decision afresh.
The petitioner also moved an application on 19.06.2015 for seeking his impleadment in the suit since his impleadment in the revision had already been allowed but by means of order dated 03.10.2016, the said application came to be rejected. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision on 15.10.2016 which remained pending, however, in the meantime, the private respondents nos. to 10 and 11 entered into a compromise on 28.09.2016 which was a pure act of collusion, inasmuch as, the respondent no. 11 had already transferred the share to the petitioner and though he had been impleaded as a party in the revision yet on the basis of the said compromise dated 28.09.2016, the suit came to be decided on 18.10.2016.
The petitioner being aggrieved against the said judgment preferred an appeal under Section 331 before the Additional Commissioner where both his appeal against the judgment decided the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A&L.R. Act as well as his earlier revision which was preferred whereby his application for impleadment had came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by two separate orders.
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the dismissal of his revision against the order of rejection of his application for impleadment. It has also been informed that against the impugned judgment of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner had already preferred a review which is engaging the attention of the Additional Commissioner.
It has also been informed that the sole petitioner has expired and an application seeking condonation of delay, settling aside abatement alongwith an application for substitution has been moved bearing C.M.A. No. 159246 of 2021 and 159248 of 2021.
The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and at the outset allows the application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution and the learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out the necessary corrections in the array of parties during the course of the day.
Having considered the aforesaid facts as mentioned above, it is clear that the revision which was preferred was only against the order by which the application for impleadment was rejected. During the pendency of the revision, the impugned proceedings also came to be decided against which a regular appeal was filed which has also been dismissed whereof a review is pending. Once the issue in between the parties is the subject matter of appeal which stands dismissed and is under review. The revision against an order rejecting the application for impleadment as the said order has merged with the final order which as noticed above is the subject matter of appeal which is dismissed and is under review.
Considering the aforesaid, nothing survives in this petition as it is only against the limited order of rejection of impleadment. All issues can appropriately be considered where the matter is pending in review, however, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition, accordingly, the application seeking disposal of the application for interim relief is disposed of and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is being dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
Asheesh
