Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25987 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt.Narvada Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Sharan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had purchased Gata No. 393A area 3 Biswa in the year 1990 through a registered sale deed and the name of the petitioner was duly mutated vide order dated 12.06.1990 by the Tehsildar concerned and since then the petitioner is having possession over the said land. Out of the said plot purchased by the petitioner, she sold Gata No. 393A area 1 Biswa out of 3 Biswa through a registered sale deed on 28.06.2008 to Zamila Khatun whose name name was also mutated in the revenue records.
3. Accordingly to the petitioner the controversy has started on the commencement of the consolidation proceedings where by order dated 11.09.2008, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has rejected the division of land under Section 9C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against which the petitioner has preferred an Appeal No. 1523 under Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 29.01.2020.
4. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the petitioner has constructed a house over the said land and in 2018, the respondents have filed an application under Section 116 of of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner has received notices and filed her objections.
5. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner before this Court is that any order passed in appeal will have bearing upon proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code and consequently the proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue code deserves to be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and submits that any order passed by the competent court under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code is subject to first appeal, second appeal or revision and can be duly modified or substituted whenever the appeal is decided. Just merely pendency of the appeal cannot be a ground for interfering in the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code. Even otherwise, the parties shall on the basis of their interest in the said property cannot be asked to wait outcome of proceedings in another litigation endlessly.
7. There is no law or statutory provision to aid the petitioner in support of her contentions as prayed in the present writ petition. It will always open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application where the proceedings are pending and the competent court after perusal of the same can pass appropriate orders if it so chooses considering the rights of the parties involved therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is a possibility by conflict of the orders in both the proceedings. Orders in appeal as well as orders passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 can coexist and would be supplementary each other.
8. In light of the above, I do not find any merits in the case which is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Ravi/-