Allahabad High Court
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others vs Shri Abdul Salim Khan on 8 October, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:178398
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11503 of 2025
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shri Abdul Salim Khan
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Abhishek Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Satya Prakash Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned ACSC, for the petitioner/State and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Plaintiff respondent had instituted SCC Suit No. 20 of 2013 against the petitioner/State for arrears of rent and ejectment. The State filed its written statement and denied the title of the landlord respondent on the ground that property in question had vested in the Union of India, who is the custodian of the same. On 24.12.2018 following issues were framed;
"1- ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???
2- ???? ????????? ??????-4 ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? 25/- ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ???
3- ???? ????????? ??????-4 ?? ??? ?????? 01.01.1950 ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???????
4- ???? ??? ??? ??????? 13 ??? 1972 ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ???
5- ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ???
6- ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? 7 ???? 11 ??.??.??. ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ???
7- ???? ??????????? ???? ?? 50,000 ????? ????? ????? ????-35? ??. ??.??. ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ???
8- ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ????"
3. Thereafter, on the basis of an application filed by plaintiff respondent three additional issues were framed by the trial court on 30.1.2024, which are as under;
"09. ???? ??? ???? 23 ????????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ???
10. ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ???
11. ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????????? ???"
4. The State/petitioner moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC on 6.3.2024 for framing three additional issues, which are as under;
"1-???? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???
2-???? ??? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???
3-???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???"
5. The trial court on 12.9.2024 while deferring the case for 16.10.2024 directed that the application 79C moved for framing of additional issues shall be decided at the time of final hearing. Aggrieved by the said order, the State had preferred SCC Revision No. 60 of 2024 before the District Judge, Bulandshahar, who on 6.3.2025 rejected the same by upholding the order of trial court.
6. Learned ACSC submitted that no finding has been recorded by the court below while rejecting the revision nor any order was passed in the application 79C moved by the State before the trial court. According to him, once the property in question vested in the Union of India, who is the custodian of the same, it was mandatory upon both the courts below to frame the additional issues as specific plea was taken in the written statement. He further submitted that there is serious title dispute in the present matter and proceedings before the Judge, Small Causes Court are barred by the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
7. Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the property does not vests in the Union and a reply was filed wherein it was stated that it was due to mistake the property was recorded to be under the custody of Union of India being the custodian, in fact it is the respondent, who is the owner of the property and he has let out the premises to the petitioner for running a school.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the trial court fell into error by not deciding the application 79C wherein specifically it was averred that the property in dispute vests with the custodian i.e. Union of India and additional issues need to be framed as to the title/ownership of the property. Once the State in its written statement has specifically stated in its additional plea about the said fact, the trial court should have framed the issue in regard to the title of the property.
9. It seems that the trial court was well aware that once the issue of title is raised, then dispute as to the jurisdiction of Court would arise in view of Section 23. Prima facie, from the reading of paragraph no. 14 of the written statement, it is clear that the property in question was recorded in the assessment register of Nagar Palika, Khurja, Bulandshahar as custodian between the period 1.4.1980 to 31.3.1986. It was only in the year 1999 that the entries were struck of and name of respondent Abdul Salim Khan was entered upon.
10. Serious allegations have been raised by the State as to the said entry as name of respondent has been recorded in the year 1999 when the wife of respondent was the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, Khurja, Bulandsahar. It seems that the trial court swayed away on the ground that the matter only relates to the arrears of rent and ejectment and same is a summary proceeding. It did not consider the application 79C moved by the State and deferred the same for taking decision at the time of the judgment. The revisional court also failed in its duty and wrongly dismissed the revision in a cursory manner without recording any reason.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the application 79C needs to be adjudicated by the trial court before proceeding further with the case. In view of the said fact, the order impugned dated 12.9.2024 passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 6.3.2025 passed by the revisional court are hereby set aside.
12. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The trial court is directed to decide the application 79C filed by the State, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
October 8, 2025
Shekhar
