Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite parties no. 2 to 4, hence notice to them is dispensed with.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.3.2019 as well as order dated 10.3.2013 passed by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, respectively as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition.
In pursuance of the order dated 10.03.2013 vide order dated 2.9.2019 the assessment order was made in favour of opposite parties no. 3 and 4. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order which has been dismissed by the opposite party no. 1 by the impugned order dated 29.3.2019.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property in question was purchased by way of sale-deed by the husband of the petitioner from his brother, namely, Jalaluddin son of Jameeluddin. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 fraudulently on the basis of family partition, has got their names entered in the Nagar Palika Parishad records. The petitioner is in possession of the property in question as the husband of the petitioner had installed a flour mill, masala chakki, spiller. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 have no right over the property in question. The appellate authority has wrongly rejected the appeal on the ground that the suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sitapur and during pendency of the said suit this appeal is not maintainable.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
In case the petitioner claims her right over the property in question on the basis of some sale-deed, she will have to get her name mutated in the relevant records of the Nagar Palika Parishad under which the said property comes or got a declaration made by the competent Court in her favour by filing a suit. Unless the name of petitioner comes in the record of the concerning authorities or get an order declaring the petitioner as owner of the property in question the petitioner cannot claim that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was wrongly rejected.
It would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum and do the needful.
In the given circumstances, no interference is required by this Court at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Santosh/-