Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41675 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhrigunath And 2 Others Respondent :- Commissioner, Azamgarh Division And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnarayn Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 41 of the UP Land Revenue Act for demarcation instituted by the opposite party. The matter has been decided against the demarcation has been ordered by which the petitioner opposite party in proceedings in the suit. The order for demarcation was passed. An application for its recall filed by the petitioners predecessor-in-interest was dismissed as was not consequential revision. Hence this writ petition.
Assailing the impugned orders, the contention is that the demarcation has been sought by the opposite party claiming on the basis of a sale deed executed by his grandfather in the year 1977. The suit filed in the year 1982 which came to be dismissed. It was however decreed at the first appellate stage. A second appeal against the same is pending consideration and, therefore, it is contended that the demarcation proceedings have been wrongly determined. Also an objection under Section 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act for expunging the name of the respondent is also pending consideration. These facts were concealed by the respondent which obtaining the order for demarcation under Section 41, land Revenue Act. This also vitiates the orders impugned.
In case, the sale deed on the basis whereof demarcation had been sought and was granted, is ultimately set aside, the demarcation order shall necessarily abide by the said decision.
Subject to the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Priyanka