Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22662 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ram Lali Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh,Kishan Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Gautam, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State.
It is contended that initially in the year 1986 the land in question was allotted to one Umesh. After he became the bhumidhar of land and permission was granted by Collector under Section 157-AA of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act the land was transferred by registered sale-deed in the year 2003 in favour of petitioner. According to the petitioner, the lease which was granted in favour of Umesh was cancelled and his name was expunged on 29.09.2014 from the revenue records. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction being suit no. 372 of 2017 (Ram Lali Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri. It was in the year 2021 that petitioner applied for certified copy of the order of the year 2014 by which the name of Umesh was expunged from the revenue records and authorities refused to supply the order dated 29.09.2014 to the petitioner.
Sri Gautam has contended that the sale-deed which was executed in favour of petitioner could not have been cancelled by the state authorities without filing any suit and has relied upon a decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Kusum Lata Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 18.05.2018.
Learned Standing Counsel opposing the writ petition submitted that the order dated 29.09.2014 has not been assailed in the present writ petition and a civil suit is already pending. He further contended that sale-deed was executed by Umesh in favour of petitioner and State was not a party in such proceedings. It is further contended that only the name of Umesh has been expunged from the revenue records and no order has been passed against the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material on record, I find that the sale-deed was executed by Umesh in favour of petitioner in the year 2003 and State authorities after finding that the allotment made in favour of Umesh was wrong, the allotment was cancelled and his name was expunged from the revenue records. No question arises for cancellation of the sale-deed as it was executed between the two private parties and State was not a party of such transaction between Umesh and petitioner. The Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Kusum Lata (Supra) is not applicable in the present case as the State authorities had not cancelled the sale- deed and only proceeded to expunge the name of original allottee from the revenue records to allotment which was cancelled.
The remedy available to the petitioner is to file declaratory suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and present writ petition is not maintainable. As the petitioner is already continuing with the suit claiming mandatory injunction against the State, he may continue, if so advised. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground for interference in the writ petition.
Dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Shekhar