It is contended by Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the impugned order the title of the petitioner has also been decided, which cannot be done in the summary proceeding under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, orders impugned are unsustainable as the finding recorded by the revenue court may affect the title suit. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, appears to be justified.
In view of that matter requires scrutiny.
Issue notice.
Notices on behalf of the respondent no. 1and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, therefore, notice need not be served them again.
Issue notice to respondent no. 3 through registered post returnable at an early date.
Learned counsel for the respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed two weeks thereafter. List thereafter.
As an interim measure, without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, it is provided that in case the petitioner files suit for declaration of his title, the Court concerned may decide the suit without being influenced by the finding recorded by the revenue authority with respect to the title.
Order Date :- 21.6.2010 Manoj