Allahabad High Court
Smt. Brahmawati vs Naib Tehsildar, Safedabad, ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34581
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3953 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Brahmawati
Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar, Safedabad, Tehsil-Nawabganj, Barabanki, And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Shukla,Shyam Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Shri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents
In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party nos.2 & 3 is hereby dispensed with.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2022 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Safedabad, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District-Barabanki in Case No.12760/2017, Computerized Case No.T20170412480112760, Ram Vilas V/s Birju, under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner from Khata No.654 in Gata No.822, 820 and 1702 situated in Village-Baburigaon Pargana-Deva, Tehsil-Nawabganj, District- Barabanki, in the interest of justice."
The petitioner aggrieved from the order dated 27.08.2022 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Safedabad, Tehsil- Nawabganj, District- Barabanki on the ground that the aforesaid order has been passed without impleading the petitioner whereas the present petitioner was an affected/aggrieved party.
Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that even if the petitioner was not party before the Naib Tehsildar concerned, she being affected/aggrieved party may very well approached the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that this is a settled law to the effect that the affected/aggrieved party may approach the Appellate Authority even if he/she was not the party in the original proceedings by filing an appeal showing his/her bonafide to the Appellate Court and also by apprising that by means of impugned order he/she is being affected. If such appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority may consider and dispose of the said appeal, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the parties concerned.
Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 15 days from today and if such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority may dispose of the same, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition, preferably within a time frame so prescribed under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Till the filing of appeal before the Appellate Authority or a period of 15 days, whichever is earlier, the status quo as on today in respect of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Mohd. Sharif
