Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18333
Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1687 of 2025
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Ayra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Ravi Dwivedi,Shyam Singh,Varsha Rani
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ayra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/Gram Sabha concerned, Sri Shyam Singh, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 5/Nagar Palika Parishad concerned in the Court today, which is taken on record, and Sri Ravi Dwivedi, Advocate alongwith Ms. Varsha Rani & Sri Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocates, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 to 20 in the Court today, which is also taken on record.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following main relief(s) :-
"i. To set aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 in case No. 219/2022 [(Computerized case No. C202208000000219) (Pramod Kumar Singh Va. Ram Lav & ors)] passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devipatan Mandal, District Gonda u/s 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 as well as order dated 25.01.2022 in case No. RST/04643/2020 [(Computerized case No. T202008300504643) (Ram Surat & ors Vs. Kali Prasad & ors)] passed by Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Karnailganj, Gonda u/s 229(B) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. (Contained as Annexures No. 1 & 2).
ii. Issue a order or direction the thereby commanding the opposite party No. 3 to implead all the petitioners as necessary opposite parties in case No. 93/T20200830050 (Ram Surat & ors Vs. Kali Prasad & ors) pending before him, in the interest of justice."
Vide impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Case No. RST/04643/2020, Computerized Case No. T202008300504643 (RamSurat and others vs. Kali Prasad and others), which was instituted wayback in the year 2008 in terms of Section 229 (B) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Karnailganj, District- Gonda (in short "Magistrate") rejected the application of the petitioners seeking impleadment in the said case as opposite parties/defendants being the purchasers of the property in issue. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.01.2022 on reproduction reads as under:-
"???? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ????????????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????-2003 ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????-2009 ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????-2011 ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ???? ? ??????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????- 2012 ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????-2018 ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ????-18 ????, 12 ????, 10 ????, 9 ???? ??? 03 ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??, ??? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ??, ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????, ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????, ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??, ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ??????? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ??????: 27.01.2022 ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???, ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???????"
Challenging the order dated 25.01.2022, the aggrieved party approached the respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devi Patan Mandal, District- Gonda (in short "Revisional Authority") by means of Revision No. 219 of 2022, Computerized Case No. C202208000000219 (Pramod Kumar Singh vs. Ram Lav and others) in terms of Section 333 of the Act of 1950, whereupon, the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024 dismissed the said revision and affirmed the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Magistrate. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.06.2024 on reproduction reads as under:-
"???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???????? 25.01.2022 ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???? 2003 ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? 2009 ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? 2011 ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ???? ? ??????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????-2012 ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? 2018 ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ???? 18 ????, 12 ????, 10 ????, 9 ???? ??? 03 ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ??, ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????, ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????, ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ??, ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???
??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 22.02.2018 ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ???
??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????? ????? ?? ????"
Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, as appears from the impugned orders dated 25.01.2022 and 13.06.2024 as well as from the material available on record placed before this Court by the parties' counsel, and Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "Act of 1882") as well as other settled propositions and various pronouncements on the subject including the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Anjanappa and others vs. A. Prabhakar and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183, this Court finds that no interference is required in the impugned orders dated 25.01.2022 and 13.06.2024. It is for the following facts/reasons:-
(i) Suit in which the petitioners preferred the application for impleadment was instituted on 27.11.2008, as appears from the copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the present petition.
(ii) The suit aforesaid was filed under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 for declaration of rights over the land of Gata No(s). 782/0.770, 783/0.0730, 532/0.0810, 619/0.1380, 788/0.0690, 789/0.0280 and 781Sa/0.0810, situated in Village- Karnailganj, Pargana- Gwarich, Tehsil- Karnailganj, District- Gonda.
(iii) During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, the part(s) of suit property were purchased by:-
(a) petitioner No. 1/Pramod Kumar Singh through registered sale deed dated 15.02.2012 executed by Kali Prasad (defendant No. 1 in the suit),
(b) petitioner No. 2/Alia Begum through registered sale deed dated 30.06.2009, executed by Smt. Rajpati (defendant No. 6 in the suit),
(c) petitioner No. 3/Lilawati through registered sale deed dated 10.02.2023 executed by Shiv Saran (husband of defendant No. 5/Smt. Sona) s/o Brhama, died prior to filing of suit and whose successors namely Kali Prasad, Vikas, Girdhari, Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Sona were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in suit,
(d) petitioner No. 4/Abdul Kalam through registered sale deed dated 21.12.2011 executed by son(s) of Vijay Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 15 in the suit) namely Suraj Singh and Shiv Shankar Singh through guardian/mother namely Smt. Shyama Devi w/o Vijay Bahadur Singh and
(e) petitioner No. 5/Masum Ali through registered sale deed dated 31.07.2018, executed by Vijay Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 15 in the suit).
(iv) The aforesaid is evident from paragraphs 5 to 9 of the instant petition, which are reproduced hereinunder, and copy of the plaint and also the sale deed(s) on record.
"5.That the petitioner No.1 purchased 900 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Kali Prasad s/o Hari Sharan through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2012.
The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 15.02.2012, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this petition.
6. That the petitioner No.2 purchased the land in Gata No. 523/0.05 Dismil, 529/0.5 Dismil, 531/0.23 Dismil, 540/0.25 Dismil, 541/0.10 Dismil, 542/0.08 Dismil Jumla 8 Kita/1.02 Dismil (8 Kita Rakba 1 Acre 2 Dismil) from its owner Smt Rajpati w/o Late Surya Lal through a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2009.
The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 30.06.2009, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this petition.
7. That the petitioner No. 3 purchased 1320 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Shiv Sharan s/o Brahma through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2003.
The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 10.02.2023, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this petition.
8. That the petitioner No.4 purchased 1260 square foot land in Gata No. 782 from its owner Suraj Singh (Minor) & Shiv Shankar Singh (Minor) s/o Rajendra Singh through guardian Shyama Devi w/o Vijay Bahadur Singh s/o Hari Sharan through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.2011.
The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 21.12.2011, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this petition.
9. That the petitioner No.5 purchased 0.048/1/25 square hec. land in Gata No. 788/0.069 hec. & 789/0.028 hec. from its owner Vijay Bahadur s/o Kandhai Lal through a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2018.
The true photocopy/ type copy of the sale deed dated 31.07.2018, is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this petition."
(v) From the aforesaid, it appears that entire suit property has not been sold/transferred and concerned parties are already on record as defendants, who could effectively contest/defend the suit for declaration of title in issue in which burden lies on the plaintiff(s) to make out and establish a clear case for granting such declaration as the principle is that 'plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of defence'.
(vi) The suit is at the stage of arguments.
(vii) The application for impleadment, to the view of this Court, was preferred only with the intention to delay the trial/disposal of suit, pending since 27.11.2008, which has been expedited by this Court.
(viii) In the application for impleadment, the date of knowledge of the suit in issue has not been indicated, which also indicates that the petitioners were aware about the pendency of the suit and at the stage of conclusion of trial, this application was moved with oblique motive.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 2.4.2025
Arun/-
