Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58118 of 2005 Petitioner :- Jai Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Y.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2005 passed by respondent no.3 which is Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents no.2 and 3 to ensure compliance of order dated 20.11.1996, annexure 18 and 18 A to this writ petition and to direct the executive officer of Town Area Koraon, Allahabad to record the name of the petitioner in the Survey Register in respect of the disputed house on the basis of order dated 20.11.1996 and also issue ownership certificate of the petitioner.
It appears on the perusal of the record that the petitioner obtained an order dated 20.11.1996 from the Regional Collector for mutation of the petitioner's name over the property in dispute i.e. House No. 375. Pursuant to the order of the Regional Collector, the petitioner's name was recorded as owner of House no. 375. Subsequently, a suit was filed by respondent no.11 in respect of the same house against the petitioner in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge, Court No. 7, Allahabad on 26.03.2004 restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit over the disputed house and subsequently on the basis of the interim injunction, the name of the petitioner was expunged and substituted by the name of respondent no. 11. The contention of the petitioner thus, is that grant of interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 11 could not have been made the basis by respondent no.2 for scoring out the mutation made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed house upon the premise that until the Civil Court decides the title of the parties with regard to the house in dispute, the petitioner was not entitled to mutation of his name over the same.
It has come on record that Civil Court prima facie finding respondent no.11 in possession over the disputed property, has granted interim injunction in his favour restraining the petitioner from interfering in his possession.
There is nothing on record which may indicate that temporary injunction granted by the Civil Court in favour of respondent no.3 has been vacated or has been set aside in appeal.
We accordingly decline to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.
However, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate dated shall abide by the decision of the Civil Court.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Madhurima