Allahabad High Court
Ramjeet Yadav vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow And ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180714
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 51991 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ramjeet Yadav
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- B.L.Verma,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Mohit Verma,Sachida Nand Tripathi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sachchidanand Tripathi, Advocate for contesting-respondent.
2. The case of petitioner is essentially based on a judgment and order dated 08.05.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31796 of 1999 and further that said order was not considered by Revenue Authorities, when matter was remanded back to consider the application filed for mutation at the behest of contesting-respondent afresh.
3. This Court passed following order on 28.08.2010:
?Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3, who prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 4, who may also file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on the respondent by registered post within 10 days.
Office shall issue notices returnable at an early date.
List for admission after service of notice on the respondent.
It is contended that even though vide judgement and order dated 08.05.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31796 of 1999, the order passed directing to expunge the name of the vendor of the petitioner was set aside, still the Additional Commissioner without considering this aspect of the matter has wrongly and illegally remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar to decide the question with regard to the validity of the rights of the vendor of the petitioner and the Board of Revenue also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the revision.
Prima facie, there appears to be force in the submission and the petitioner is entitled to an interim order.
Considering the facts and circumstances, until further orders of this Court, further proceedings pending before Deputy Collector, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur in pursuance to the impugned order of remand shall remain stayed. Respondents are further restrained from Interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.?
4. It is not under much dispute that the order dated 08.05.2007 was never placed before Revenue Authorities, therefore, effect of it was not considered. There is no dispute that still on remand the effect of said judgment can be considered, as well as whether there is any effect of another civil suit and orders passed therein, which is still pending.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, without interfering with impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with observation that concerned Court will decide application for mutation afresh within three months from today after taking note of effect of above referred judgment dated 08.05.2007 also. Since petitioner is enjoying interim order for last more than 14 years during pendency of present writ petition, therefore, the same will remain in currency for atleast for three months from today, however, this interim order will not effect merit of the case.
6. A copy of this order be placed on record of Writ-C No. 29963 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and others).
Order Date :- 19.11.2024
AK
