Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19527 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gopal Nagia And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Notice need not be issued to the private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 14.03.2018 passed by Commissioner, Aligarh Mandal, Aligarh, whereby the validity of order dated 16.02.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sikandra Rau, District Hathras, wherein the impleadment application filed by the fourth and seventh respondents had been turned down, has been assailed by the revisionist and the same has been allowed.
In support of her submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while passing the order impugned at no point of time any notice or opportunity has been given to the petitioner and ex-parte order has been passed wherein the matter has been remitted back to the sub divisional magistrate to decide the matter on the merit of the case.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt the objection so raised by the petitioner has force but taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this much is also reflected that the respondents also claims certain rights over the property in question on the basis of sirdari rights in the matter and considering the said ground, the Revisional Authority has allowed the revision and the order dated 16.02.2018 has been set aside the matter has been remitted back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the same afresh and in this backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the matter.
Once the Court has declined to interfere in the order impugned, then in such a situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that direction may be issued to the Authority concerned to finalize the proceeding under Section 229-B of UPZA&LR Act, 1950 at the earliest.
Learned Standing Counsel has not opposed the said prayer.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sikandra Rau, District Hathras to finalize the aforesaid proceeding under Section 122-B of UPZA&LR Act, 1950 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost of Rs.250/- but certainly after according opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 A. Pandey