Allahabad High Court
Smt. Azeezan And 6 Others vs Smt. Khushnood And 22 Others on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171797
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7280 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Azeezan And 6 Others
Respondent :- Smt. Khushnood And 22 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Alka Srivastava
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"a) Set aside the judgment and order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No.1, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2015 and order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Meerut in Misc. Suit No.67 of 2000, "Smt. Bano vs. Mobeen and others" (Annexure Nos.9 and 7 to the petition) respectively."
3. It appears that a Misc. Suit No.67 of 2000 (Smt. Bano vs. Mobeen and others) was filed seeking partition of the suit property.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by means of a preliminary decree, the shares of each of the parties was defined and, thereafter, the Court Commissioner was directed under the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 13 CPC to prepare lots. The Commissioner's report paper no.63-Ga alongwith site plan was submitted before the trial court. It is stated that as per the proposed lots made by the Commissioner, the petitioner-defendants were given a corner plot of the land abutting two roads. The proposed lots of the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2/1 to 2/3 were given, but the proposed lot of the petitioners was towards a lane. It is stated that the trial court, by means of the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, without any basis, altered the lots proposed by the Commissioner and granted the plaintiff and defendant nos.2/1 to 2/3 a corner plot each, and as far as the petitioner-defendants are concerned, allotted a plot that is facing a lane. It is stated that the compensation awarded by the civil court is inadequate and the petitioners are willing to offer the same compensation to the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2/1 to 2/3 if they are allotted the plot in terms of the proposed lots prepared by the Amin.
5. It was noted by the trial court that the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2/1 to 2/3 each have one-fourth share in the suit property and the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/7 have half share of the suit property. Without altering the area as proposed by the Amin, the trial court passed a final order making the lots as mentioned in the order dated 14.10.2014. That is to say, the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2/1 to 2/3 were allotted corner plots and the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/7 were allotted a plot opening on to a lane. As compensation, the trial court directed that the plaintiff shall pay the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/7 @ Rs.50,000/- per person, i.e, Rs.3.50 lacs, and the defendant nos.2/1 to 2/3 is directed to pay to the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/7 @ Rs.25,000/- per person, i.e, Rs.1.75 lacs.
6. The appellate court observed that there are three parties and two of them have received corner plots which appears to be appropriate. It was observed that the trial court, while making the partition, has, as far as possible, made the lots as per the constructions existing on the plot of land of the parties concerned. Further, it was observed that the compensation that was directed to be paid is much more than the valuation of the suit which appears to be just and proper. It was further observed that the suit was filed in the year 1991 and it was pending for 32 years. It was held that the trial court has correctly taken a decision in accordance with law and the dispute between the parties has come to an end. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
7. In a suit for partition of the property which, in the instant case is an abadi land, there is a likelihood of some dissatisfaction of parties pursuant to any direction that is made by the court while making lots pursuant to a preliminary decree. However, it is in the interest of justice that unless some glaring defect or arbitrariness is observed in the order of partition, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be hesitant to interfere. In the present case, under the facts and circumstances, the lots made by the trial court in the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, as reflected in the map made by the trial court in its order, appear to be reasonable. The trial court has balanced the rights of the parties and has adequately compensated the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/7, who are the petitioners in the instant case, by directing payment of money.
8. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
