Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15267 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Singh,Anand Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
Petitioner before this Court is assailing the validity of order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Collector, Kushinagar in Case no.D-2015054401054 (Sachchidananad Dubey vs. Ashwini Kumar Dubey) as well as order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the second respondent in Case no.REV/386/2017/Kushingar (Ashwini Kumar Dubey vs. Schchidananad Dubey).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order dated 31.01.2018 and remitting the matter back to the Tehsildar concerned, the Board of Revenue has erred in law as by means of order dated 10.09.1999, the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record and on the strength of the same, still he is in possession of the property in question and there is every likelihood that he may be dispossessed during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tehsildar concerned and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that rightful order has been passed by the second respondent by setting aside the order dated 10.09.1999 and 28.12.2016 and relegating the parties before the Tehsildar concerned for deciding the same on merits and after hearing both the parties and as such, no interference is required in the same.
In this backdrop, the Court has proceeded to peruse the record in question and finds that this is an admitted case that the name of the petitioner has been mutated way back in the year 1999 and it has also been claimed on the basis of averment contained under paragraph 18 of the writ petition that petitioner is in actual possession of the property in question. It is also reflected that by the order impugned dated 31.01.2018, the Board of Revenue has only remitted the matter back to the Tehsildar concerned to decide the same afresh on merits and the order passed by the Collector has also been set aside.
Once nothing has been adjudicated by the Revisional Court and only the matter has been remitted back to the Tehsildar concerned for deciding the proceeding under Section 34 of UPZA&LR Act 1950 on merits, then this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the matter. However, in the interest of justice, this Court proceeds to ask the Tehsildar concerned to expedite and conclude the said proceeding expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without according any unnecessary delay to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost but certainly after providing opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter. As it is apprehended that during the finalization of the said proceeding, the petitioner would be dispossessed from the property in question, it is directed that till the disposal of the said proceeding, the parties shall maintain status quo as of today qua the property in dispute.
With these, Writ Petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 A. Pandey