Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42421 of 2019 Petitioner :- Brijnath Respondent :- District Magistrate And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Dubey,Vipul Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th of October, 2014 whereby the name of the petitioner entered in the municipal record has been struck off on the basis of the application moved by the natural heirs of late Satiram, who was the owner of the property in question. The appeal filed by petitioner has also comes to be rejected by the Collector/District Magistrate exercising power under section 160 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1959 on 4.12.2019.
The ground for assailing the orders impugned by the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was duly recorded over the property by the order of the Executive Officer dated 3rd July, 2002 and after nearly 12 years an application has come to be moved by the successor and heirs of the deceased Satiram and the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh manifestly erred in allowing the same. He has also assailed order of the appellate court on the same ground.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate has defended the order for the reasons assigned therein. He further submits that the contesting respondents are the natural heirs and legal successors of late Satiram and the petitioner before this Court was the sister's son of late Satiram, who taking advantage of his closeness with late Satiram and family got his name recorded in the municipal records wholly illegally in an ex-parte proceeding and by the order of Executive Officer in an ex-parte manner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that undisputed position is that respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 are the natural heirs and legal successors of late Satiram. We made a pointed query to the petitioner as to on what basis he is setting up his right and claim in respect of the house in question and wants his name to be recorded defending the order dated 3rd July, 2002, he only submits that he has got his right accrued in view of the order dated 3rd July 2002 and a belated application for recalling the order dated 3rd July, 2002 should not have been entertained after a gap of 12 years. We are of the considered opinion that the claim set up by the petitioner is neither supported by any instrument of sale nor a will deed. In such view of the matter the petitioner cannot be said to be the heir and successor of the deceased owner to step into his shoes. However, we further express our opinion that proceedings are merely summary in nature and they do not decide title and rights of the parties in respect of any property. It is always open for the petitioner to file a civil suit to get his rights and title adjudicated upon.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with aforesaid observations.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Shiraz