Allahabad High Court
Ajay And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 27 Others on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38529 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ajay And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 27 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyavrat Sahai
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Satyavrat Sahai, learned counsel for respondent no.3 i.e. Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj.
The instant petition has been filed for quashing the dispossession order of the letter impugned dated 9.5.2022 passed in Case No.9931 of 2021, Computerized Case No.T202102030209931, under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the administrative side. It is further prayed that restoration application filed by the petitioners in the aforementioned partition be decided within stipulated period and till the disposal of the application status quo be maintained by the parties.It is also prayed that nature of the agricultural land may not be changed nor any third party interest be created in respect to the land in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit for partition was filed without impleading the petitioner although the petitioners was necessary party in the proceeding. He further submitted that preliminary decree and final decree have been passed in the aforementioned proceeding but no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners before passing the decree. He next submitted that the restoration application has been filed by the petitioner but in arbitrary manner, petitioners have been dispossessed from the plot in dispute. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2020 0 Supreme (ALL) 664, Jagbhan Singh and Another Vs. Board of Revenue And Others. He also submitted that on the basis of the ratio of judgment laid down in the aforementioned Jagbhan Singh (supra), the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for respondent no.3-Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj submitted that the petitioners have already filed a restoration application against the judgment and decree of the partition suit, as such, no interference is required at this stage. They further submitted that the final decree in the partition suit has been passed, as such, no interference is required unless the judgment and decree passed in the partition suit is recalled or set aside.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that partition suit in respect to the plot in dispute has been decided and final decree has been passed on 8.12.2021. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioners has filed the restoration application against the final decree passed in the partition suit on 8.12.2021.
Since the restoration application filed by the petitioners is pending before respondent no.2 in the partition suit No. T202102030209931, as such, interest of justice requires that the same may be decided expeditiously in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no.2 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil- Phoolpur, District- Prayagraj is directed to decide the petitioners' restoration application in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.2.2023
Rameez
