Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7856 of 2021 Petitioner :- Gulabi Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.R. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Singh,Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.2.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for setting aside the entire proceedings of Case No. T20150531039839 (Gaurav Deepak Shrivastav Vs. Gulabi Devi and 2 others under Section 209 of U.P. Land Reforms Act) pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in physical possession over the property in dispute owned by the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition.
A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioners have a statutory remedy under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the issue regarding maintainability of the suit was decided pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.11.2018 passed in Writ C No. 38400 of 2018, Gulabi Devi and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. He submits that in that petition the entire proceedings initiated under Section 209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were under challenge.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention to various provisions of law and the judgments and various documents filed alongwith the writ petition submitted that the suit itself would not be maintainable.
I am not inclined to refer to all such documents as I am of the opinion that the petitioners may avail statutory remedy under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and they are at lierty to raise all such objections before the revisional court.
It is needless to point out that specific findings are required to be recorded by the revisional court on all the issues and arguments that may be raised by the petitioners.
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 very fairly admitted that the contesting respondent is not in possession and the petitioners are in possession, therefore, there is no need to pass any further order.
In case the statutory remedy is availed within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be entertained and all efforts shall be made to decide the revision by the revisional court, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a self attested copy of this order which may be verified from the website of this Court.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted that the respondents are avoiding hearing of the case, therefore, it is provided that the revisional court shall fix short dates and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to any of the parties and in case it is found that the respondents are deliberately avoiding the court, heavy costs may be imposed and the Court will be at liberty to proceed ex-parte.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 p.s.