Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Syed Qamar Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10760 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chand Mishra,Subhash Chandra Maurya,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. At the very outset, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, he is permitted to implead the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj as respondent no. 12 within the course of the day.
2. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Pratap Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 20.2.2023 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj in Case No. 6299 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202202030606299 (Shiv Poojan & others Vs. Ram Singh & others) under Section 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the respondent not to interfere in the peaceful possession over Gata No. 515 area 0.4660 hectare situated at village Akbarpur Sallahapur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj."
4. Learned counsel for the State-respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of availability of efficacious and statutory remedy under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
5. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his prayer to the extent that in case a liberty is granted to the petitioners to file a revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 challenging the order that is impugned in the writ petition. He is ready to not press the said petition at this stage.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are the bonafide purchaser of the property and as such they are entitled for protection of their valuable rights. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Janak Raj Vs. Gurdial Singh AIR 1967 SC 608.
7. Learned counsels for the respondents submits that they have no objection to the extent that the petitioners be granted liberty to approach the authority in accordance with the provision of Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this writ petition pending. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Prayagraj to entertain the revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in case if the aforesaid revision is filed within 15 days from today. It is further directed that the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj / respondent no. 12 may entertain the said appeal by taking a lenient view on the prayer for condonation of delay in admitting the revision. It is further directed that in case if an application for interim relief is filed along with said revision, the same shall be decided within two weeks from the date of its filing by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties unless there is other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
Arif
