Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5059 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ram Surat Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned standing counsel.
The respondent no.3 instituted a suit (421 of 1999) under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act against the father of petitioners in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Badlapur, Jaunpur. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 21.3.2003 against which the father of the petitioners filed a restoration which came to be rejected on 15.9.2003. The father of the petitioners challenged the ex-parte judgment/decree dated 21.3.2003 in Revision No.263/3 and also filed an Appeal No.47/3 before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi. Both, the appeal and revision were consolidated and came to be dismissed on 21.6.2004. The orders dated 21.6.2004,15.9.2003 and 21.3.2004 were challenged by father of petitioners in C.M.W.P No.27330 of 2004, which came to be disposed of on 26.7.2004. The operative part of the order dated 26.7.2004 is extracted hereunder:-
Accordingly impugned orders are set-aside. Deputy Collector, Badlapur District Jaunpur is directed to decide Suit No.421 under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act 9Munni Lal vs. State and others) within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing to both the parties.
In case petitioner deposits Rs.15,000/- before Deputy Collector, Badlapur District Jaunpur within three weeks from today then till the decision of the suit shall maintain status quo regarding property in dispute. If this amount of Rs.15,000/- is deposited then at the time of final disposal of the suit Deputy Collector, badlapur District Jaunpur must decide as to which party should be given the said amount Deputy Collector, Badlapur, District Jaunpur is also at liberty to apportion the said amount in between petitioner and contesting respondent no.5.
With the above observations writ petition is disposed of.
It is needless to say that the order of status quo shall cease to remain in operation after three weeks from today if during this period aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/- is not deposited by the petitioner before Deputy Collector, Badlapur District Jaunpur. Petitioner may also be permitted to file the written statement.
Pursuant thereto the father of the petitioners deposited Rs.15,000/- in the office of respondent no.2 on 24.8.2004. The suit came to be dismissed on 18.8.2011.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while dismissing the suit the trial court did not advert to the issue of return of Rs.15,000/- as directed by this court on 26.7.2004 whereas suit had been dismissed, both in law and in equity, petitioners were entitled for refund.
Shri Rajesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel is not in a position to dispute that respondent no.2 erred in law in not deciding the issue of entitlement of refund but submits that ends of justice would be met if an appropriate direction is issued to the revisional authority to advert on the said issue in the pending revision to which Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection.
This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Revisional authority shall proceed to hear and dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the next date fixed but not latter than 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, but ensuring that issue of entitlement of Rs.15,000/- is decided one way or the other depending upon the outcome of the revisional proceeding.
It is expected that the contesting parties to the revision shall not seek any frivolous adjournments and would cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the revision.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 RS