Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15494 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinda Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Revision No.C-20160500009 (Smt. Vinda v. Smt. Subhawati) under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Maharajganj in Case No.284/2663 (Sonu v. Ram Samujh) under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act.
At the very outset, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel raised an objection that once the proceeding under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act is pending consideration, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be given any opportunity to agitate the matter under writ jurisdiction and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score itself.
This much is averred in the writ petition that Ram Samujh, during his life time, executed an unregistered will deed in favour of Sonu (minor) on 10.02.2004 bequeathing the disputed plots upon him. Ram Samujh died and on 30.06.2015 the name of his wife Smt. Subhawati (fourth respondent) was recorded in revenue records against the disputed plots on the basis of an order of PaKa11. After the death of Ram Samujh, the proceeding under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act were instituted on behalf of Sonu (minor) through his natural guardian Rajdev (father) for the purpose of mutating the name of Sonu against the disputed plots on the strength of will in question. The said proceeding were registered as Case No.284/2663 (Sonu v. Ram Samujh) in which an order was passed on 8.11.2005 expunging the name of Ram Samujh and for mutating the name of Sonu son of Rajdev in his place against the disputed plot and the order dated 30.06.2005 was set aside. Against the order dated 8.11.2005 Smt. Subhawati (respondent no.4) filed restoration application on the ground that it has been passed exparte. On the restoration application, the Tehsildar concerned passed an order on 19.12.2005 staying the operation of the order dated 8.11.2005 recording the name of Sonu in place of Ram Samujh against the disputed plots. Against the order dated 19.12.2005 Sonu filed Revision No.721/69/M/2005 (Sonu v. Subhawati Devi), which was allowed on 1.9.2006 by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Division, setting aside the order dated 19.12.2005.
Aggrieved with the order dated 1.9.2006, the fourth respondent filed Writ-C No.52483 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 1.9.2006. During the pendency of writ petition the restoration application of respondent no.4 was allowed by the Tehsildar concerned on 29.12.2006 recalling the order dated 8.11.2005 on the ground that it was passed exparte without hearing the respondent no.4. The order dated 29.12.2006 was assailed by Sonu by filing restoration application for its recall on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not provided to him. The said writ petition was also dismissed on 25.7.2013 with direction to the authority concerned to consider and decide the restoration application of respondent no.4 expeditiously. Meantime, Sonu died and in his place her mother namely Vinda (the petitioner) was substituted to prosecute his restoration application. The petitioner also filed restoration application on 4.9.2013 for recalling the order dated 29.12.2006. Consequently, the Tehsildar, Sadar, Maharajganj passed the impugned order dated 10.01.2014 rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner dated 4.9.2013 as well as the restoration application of Sonu and fixing the matter for evidence of the petitioner on 23.1.2014. The order dated 10.1.2014 was challenged in revision but the same was also rejected vide order dated 24.2.2018.
On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in them. Moreover, once earlier the petitioner has approached this Court by means of earlier writ petition and the same was dismissed, as such there is no reason or occasion to pass any order in the matter.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned and no interference is required in the matter at this stage. Moreover, the Court also finds substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel that once the proceeding under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is pending consideration, there is no reason or occasion to pass any order in the matter at this stage.
Once the Court has declined to interfere in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that direction may be issued to the Tehsildar concerned to decide the proceeding under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act within stipulated period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the third respondent to consider and decide the aforesaid proceeding under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 SP/