Allahabad High Court
Bhanu Pratap And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27803 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. On 23.01.2023, this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
"I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to expunge the entry in favour of State/Saharanpur Development Authority over Khasra no. 623 mi. area 7794.20 sq. mtr. and make revenue entry of petitioners' name in the light of judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Saharanpur in O.S. No. 558 of 2007 (Sripal Singh Vs. State of UP. & Ors.) and order dated 11.03.2002 passed by this Hon'ble court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23390 of 1997 (Palla Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors) over Khasra no. 623 mi. area 7794.20 sq. mtr. in the revenue records.
II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 3/17.2.2022 (Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition) within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court."
With respect to the disputed land, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.23390 of 1997 (Palla Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by order dated 11.03.2022, as under:
"If the petitioner is still in possession over the land in question, his dispossession shall not be disturbed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in view of the fact that the entire proceeding itself has abated by the Repealing Act.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Original Suit No.558 of 2007 (Sripal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), which was decreed by judgment dated 28.10.2015 and the decree passed therein. That judgment and decree was challenged by the respondent No.2 and also by Saharanpur Development Authority, Saharanpur in Civil Appeal No.01 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.120 of 2015 respectively, which both were dismissed by judgment dated 12.02.2021 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Saharanpur.
Learned standing counsel states on instructions that against the aforesaid judgment, the State of U.P. has filed a second appeal before this court on 14.12.2022 along with a delay condonation application, which is pending.
In view of the facts as briefly noted above, the respondents are directed to show cause by means of personal affidavit of the respondent No.2, as to why the revenue entry in the revenue records with respect to the plots in question, has not been corrected so far? The personal affidavit shall be filed by the respondent No.2 within ten days.
Put up as a fresh case on 06.02.2023."
3. Pursuant to the aforequoted order dated 23.01.2023, the respondent no.2, i.e., District Magistrate, Saharanpur, has filed today his personal affidavit dated 06.02.2023, which is taken on record.
4. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the personal affidavit, the respondent no.2 has admitted that the legal heirs of original tenure holders had filed Writ-C No.23390 of 1997 (Palla Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) which was decided by order dated 11.03.2022. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the original tenure holders had filed Original Suit No.558 of 2007 (Sripal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur, in which by order dated 31.05.2008, the 6C-2 application of the petitioners (plaintiffs) was allowed by granting temporary injunction, against which the State Government filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.43 of 2008. The Saharanpur Development Authority had also filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2008. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge by order dated 09.09.2008. Against the aforesaid appellate order, the State Government filed Writ-C No.62361 of 2009 (State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Palla Singh), which was dismissed by order dated 22.01.2020. The Original Suit No.558 of 2007 was decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur by judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 granting permanent injunction in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Against that order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 28.10.2015, the Development Authority as well as State of U.P. both had filed Civil Appeal No.120 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No.01 of 2016 respectively, which were dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 12.02.2021. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.02.2021, the State of U.P. has filed Second Appeal (Defective) No.281 of 2022, which is pending before the High Court.
5. Thus, it is stand admitted to the respondents that an interim order dated 31.05.2008 allowing 6C-2 application of the petitioners-plaintiffs was passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in O.S. No.558 of 2007 and the final judgment in favour of the petitioners was passed on 28.10.2015. The appeals filed against the judgment of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 28.10.2015 were dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 12.02.2021 and a highly belated second appeal has been filed by the State before the High Court in which neither delay has been condoned nor any interim order has been granted. Therefore, it remains undisputed that there is no legal impediment as on today to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.
6. Thus, for all the reasons aforestated, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and is, therefore, allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to ensure that the names of the petitioners are mutated in the revenue records within a week from today.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023
SK
