Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1105 of 2001 Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Alld. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- T.S.Dabas,Pradeep Kumar,U.N. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Gupta,Abhay Raj Singh,Dinesh Mishra,S.K.Lakhtakia,S.P. Yadav,V.K.Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Mishra, counsel for respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 and their heirs.
The facts of the case are that respondent no. 4, respondent no. 5 and one Hansraj, i.e. the father of respondent nos. 6 and 7, were the son of Pooran Chand. It has been alleged by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 that respondent no. 4 was given in adoption by Pooran Chand and subsequently by Will dated 28.7.1958, Pooran Chand bequeathed his agricultural properties in favour of respondent no. 5 and Hansraj. However, after the death of Pooran Chand, the name of respondent no. 4 was erroneously recorded in the revenue records over Plot No. 75 (area 18.54 acres). Aggrieved by the error in the revenue records, respondent no. 5 and Hansraj filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act') praying that they may be declared as bhumidhar with transferable rights of the suit property i.e. Plot No. 75. The aforesaid suit was registered and numbered as Case No. 01 of 1999-2000 in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pooranpur, District Pilibhit. In the aforesaid case, respondent no. 4 filed his written statement. However, the aforesaid fact regarding filing of written statement by respondent no. 4 is disputed between the parties and is not relevant for the decision of the present writ petition. While the aforesaid case was pending, respondent nos. 12 and 13 filed application in Case No. 01 of 1999-2000 praying that they may be impleaded as defendants in the said case alleging inter alia that respondent no. 4 had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of his son Har Jeet i.e. respondent no. 4/1, who in turn had executed a registered sale deed dated 25.10.1999 of the suit property in favour of the applicants as well as the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 to 11 and therefore they are necessary parties in the case. The aforesaid application was filed on 25.10.1999 when evidence in the case was over. The trial court i.e. Sub- Divisional Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 dismissed the application dated 25.10.1999 filed by respondent nos. 12 and 13 and by the same order decreed Case No. 01 of 1999-2000 declaring respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 as bhumidhar with transferable rights of the suit property. Against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the trial court, respondent nos. 12 and 13 filed appeal under Section 331 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly, Division Bareilly which was registered as Appeal No. 7 of 1999. The judgment dated 19.11.1999 was also challenged by respondent no. 4 through Appeal No. 8 of 1999. In Appeal No. 7 of 1999, the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 8 to 11 in the present writ petition, were impleaded as opposite party nos. 5 to 9 and in Appeal No. 8 of 1999, the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 8 to 13 were impleaded as opposite party nos. 4 to 10. The appellate court i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly, Division Bareilly vide its order dated 7.4.2000 passed in Appeal No. 7 of 1999 deleted opposite party nos. 5 to 9 i.e. the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 to 11 in the present writ petition, as parties in the case holding that there was no necessity of impleading the aforesaid persons as opposite parties. Similar order was passed by the appellate court in Appeal No. 8 of 1999 so far as opposite party nos. 4 to 10 were concerned. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 7.4.2000, the petitioner filed Revision No. 12 of 1999- 2000 against the order passed in Appeal No. 7 of 1999 and Revision No. 13 of 1999-2000 against the order passed in Appeal No. 8 of 1999. The aforesaid revisions have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad by a common judgment and order dated 30.11.2000. The orders dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pooranpur, District Pilibhit i.e. the trial court, 7.4.2000 passed by the first appellate court i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly, Division Bareilly, in Appeal Nos. 7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999 as well as the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Revisional Court i.e. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad in Revision No. 12-13 of 1999-2000 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
A perusal of the judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the trial court in Case No. 01 of 1999-2000 shows that the trial court had dismissed the impleadment application filed by respondent nos. 12 and 13 on the ground that the alleged power of attorney executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of his son Harjeet was not filed along with the application for impleadment and therefore the sale deed cannot be relied upon to implead the applicants as defendants in the case as respondent no. 4 was alive during the proceedings in the trial court. There is no illegality in the reasons given by the trial court in its judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 so far as it dismisses the impleadment application filed by respondent nos. 12 and 13.
As the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 to 11 were not parties (defendants) in case no. 01 of 1999-2000 and had not even filed any impleadment application to be arrayed as defendants in the said case, the appellate court rightly deleted the aforesaid persons from the array of parties in Appeal No. 7 of 1999 filed by respondent nos. 12 and 13. The respondent nos. 12 and 13 as well as the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 to 11 were not arrayed as defendants in case no. 01 of 1999-2000 in the trial court therefore the aforesaid persons had no right to be impleaded as defendants in Appeal No. 8 of 1999 and in any case the said appeal was filed by respondent no. 4 against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1999 decreeing the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 as bhumidhar with transferable rights of the suit property. The aforesaid decree is to be defended by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and their heirs against respondent no. 4 and not either the petitioner or respondent nos. 8 to 13. Thus, the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 8 to 13 are not necessary parties and necessary respondents in Appeal No. 8 of 1999. Similarly, Appeal No. 7 of 1999 has also been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1999 passed in Case No. 01 of 1999-2000 decreeing the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 as bhumidhar with transferable rights of suit property. The aforesaid decree has to be defended by respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and their heirs and not either by the petitioner or respondent nos. 8 to 11. Consequently, the aforesaid persons are not necessary parties in Appeal No. 7 of 1999. In the aforesaid circumstances, the first appellate court i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly, Division Bareilly committed no illegality in directing that the aforesaid persons be deleted from the array of parties and as opposite parties in Appeal Nos. 7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999. It is pertinent to state here that Appeal No. 7 of 1999 filed by respondent nos. 12 and 13 has not been dismissed as not maintainable by the first appellate court.
The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad dismissed Revision Nos. 12 of 1999-2000 and 13 of 1999-2000 on the same ground as stated above and also on the ground that petitioner was not aggrieved by orders of the first appellate court as he had neither filed any application for impleadment in Case No. 01 of 1999- 2000 nor had filed any appeal against the aforesaid decree dated 19.11.1999 passed by the trial court. I find no illegality in the impugned order of the Board of Revenue.
Apart from the aforesaid reasons, as the petitioner had not filed any impleadment application in the trial court nor had filed any appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the trial court, the writ petition against the orders dated 7.4.2000 and 19.11.1999 is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Satyam