Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14704 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandrika Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Triveni Shanker,Sachchidanand Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Pandey,Shahroze Khan
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Triveni Shanker learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents; Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate appearing alongwith Shri Shahroze Khan, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent.
Petitioner is assailing the revisional order dated 05.04.2018 passed in Revision no.C20171700577 and C20171700578 and orders dated 29.08.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Naugarh, District Siddharthnagar in Appeal no.66 and 67 of 2017.
Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate as well as Shri Rajesh Srivastava, leaned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition as has been framed and drawn is not maintainable on the ground that earlier the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring Writ Petition no.7172/2018 (Chandrika Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others) with the request to command the Revisional Authority to decide the revision at the earliest and finally the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of asking the Revisional Court to decide the Revision expeditiously preferably within a period of three months and consequently the stay application filed alongwith revision has been turned down by the Revisional Authority on the ground that opportunity of hearing as well as adducing evidence is available before the Tehsildar (Nyayik), Naugarh, District Siddharth Nagar. In such a situation, it is claimed that in the garb of stay application, the petitioner cannot challenge the earlier order dated 29.08.2017 in Appeal no.66/67 of 2017 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naugarh, District Siddharth Nagar as petitioner can always set up his case before the Tehsildar concerned and as such, the order impugned dated 05.04.2018 is fully sustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is required in the matter.
In response to the said objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while approaching to the Revisional Authority, the petitioner has also filed stay application for staying the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate in Appeal no.66/67 of 2017 but without considering the same on merit, in most arbitrary manner, the stay application has been turned down and as such, the petitioner has got every right to assail the validity of order impugned dated 05.04.2018 passed by Revisional Court and this Court should come for the rescue and reprieve of the petitioners.
After respective arguments have been advanced, this Court has proceeded to peruse the record in question and finds that while passing the order dated 29.08.2017, the Appellate Authority has taken cognizance of the objection so filed by the contesting respondent, wherein, it has been claimed that name of Indra Narain Garg, from whom the petitioner has purchased the land, has been recorded in the revenue records as Benamidar and as such, he cannot execute the sale deed and in this backdrop, the Appellate Authority has proceeded to set aside the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Tehsildar (Nyayik) Naugarh and opportunity of hearing as well as adducing evidence has been accorded to the parties before the Tehsildar concerned. Thereafter the petitioner has been before this Court by preferring Writ Petition no.7172/2018 (Chandrika Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court, in its turn, has proceeded to ask the Authority concerned to decide the Revision in question within three months period and by taking cognizance of the said order, the order impugned dated 05.04.2018 has been passed by the Revisional Authority. Perusal of the order dated 05.04.2018 goes to show that while passing the said order, the Revisional Authority was of the considered view that once right to adduce evidence as well as hearing are available to the parties before the Court of Tehsildar, Siddharth Nagar, then there is no occasion or reason to allow the stay application dated 11.09.2017.
Once such is the factual situation that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Revisional Court has taken cognizance and consequently admitted the revision and liberty has been accorded by the Revisional Court to adduce evidence before the Tehsil (Nyayik) Naugarh, Siddharth Nagar and in this backdrop, he has proceeded to turn down the stay application, then this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. However, this Court always hopes and trust that the proceeding, which is pending before the Tehsildar (Nyayik), Naugarh is liable to be concluded at the earliest on the merit of the case and without any influence of the observation made by the Revisional Authority.
With these, Writ Petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 A. Pandey