Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4967 of 2004 Petitioner :- Rais Beg And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K.Srivastava,Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.F.A.Naqvi
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although Sri SFA Naqvi has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents none has appeared even when the petition was taken up in the revised call.
This petition impugns an order dated 18 November 2003 passed by the second respondent. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the original owner of the premises in question was one Maqbool Beg. He is stated to have executed a registered will in favour of the petitioners on 26 August 1982. Mutation authorities while passing the original order of 28 November 1992 had clearly recorded that pursuant to that will which was executed in favour of the petitioner, they continued in the possession of the premises and therefore were entitled to have their names recorded in the relevant municipal record. The claim of the petitioner was being challenged by the fifth respondent who claimed to be a tenant in the premises. He assailed the order dated 28 November 1992 by filing a statutory appeal referable to Section 472 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. That appeal was dismissed on 5 August 2000 and the original order passed in favour of the petitioner affirmed.
Notwithstanding the appeal having been dismissed, the fifth respondent proceeded to file yet another appeal in which this time around a contrary decision has come to be rendered on 18 November 2003. Undisputedly under Section 472 of the 1959 Act, there is no provision for a second appeal. Once the dispute inter partes had attained finality in terms of the judgment rendered on 5 August 2000, there was no occasion for a second appeal being either entertained or the decision rendered on 5 August 2000 being reviewed or revisited. In view of the above, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the order impugned.
Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18 November 2003, passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 LA/-