Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15192 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohammad Masud Raza Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Pandey,Keshawa Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri K.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent.
Petitioner before this Court is assailing the order dated 15th January, 2018 passed by second respondent (District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar) in case no. D 201717650001069 under Section 166 and 167 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by private respondents against the petitioner.
The record in question reflects that petitioner has purchased the land being Plot no. 289 M having an area of one biswa and five dhoor situated in village Dhodhaya, Paragana Magahar Purab, Tehsil Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar on 10th December, 2009 from one Ram Kewal son of Bhola, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and he had also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said sale-deed, the name of the petitioner was also recorded in the relevant revenue record.
The record in question further reflects that Ram Kewal original land owner of the said plot had filed a suit before the competent court for cancellation of the alleged sale-deed dated 10th December, 2009. The said suit was finally decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 3rd September, 2013 on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties dated 13th August, 2013 and the aforesaid sale-deed dated 10th December, 2009 has been declared to be null and void.
It appears that thereafter private respondent again has filed a suit under Sections 166 and 167 of the Land Revenue Act and the same has been entertained and finally order dated 15th January, 2018 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that feeling aggrieved with the said order of the District Magistrate, the original land owner Ram Kewal has filed a revision and the same is pending consideration, while the petitioner has chosen to assailed the said order before this Court by means of the present writ petition.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3 have raised preliminary objection that once the vendor has himself assailed the validity of the said order of the District Magistrate in the revision. In such a situation, there is no reason or occasion for this Court to entertain the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score itself.
Having examined the records of the present writ petition, this Court finds that once the order impugned has already been assailed by the vendor of the land in dispute by filing a revision, in such a situation, the petitioner has to invoke the said same remedy before appropriate forum as may be permissible under law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the aforesaid and with the consent, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction upon petitioner to move a revision against the order impugned before the competent authority within ten days from today along with a certified copy of this order. In case the revision is filed, the competent authority shall entertain the same and proceed to decide expeditiously in accordance with law.
(M. C. Tripathi, J.) Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Sushil/-