Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6438 of 2019 Petitioner :- Yadunandan Prasad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dileep Kumar Srivastava,Nagendra Nath Mishra
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar, counsel for the petitioner; Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2; Shri Dileep Kumar Srivastava for respondent No.6; and Shri Nagendra Nath Mishra for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14.11.2005 and 02.01.2019.
The respondent No.4 had allowed the application of respondent No.6 for mutating his name on the basis of sale deed so executed in favour of respondent on 03.01.1975.
The contention of petitioner is that he is residing in Abadi since long, which was under the Gaon Sabha. In the year 1988-89, the assessment was made by respondent No.4 and copy of the assessment so made for the relevant year 1988-89 to 1993-94 is appended as annexure No.2 at page No.26.
Shri Arun Kumar counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is in possession of the property for the last 43 years. Respondent No.6 had earlier filed a J.S.C.C. suit against petitioner, which was withdrawn by the respondent No.6.
Thereafter an original suit No.889 of 1998 seeking relief of possession with damages was filed by the respondent No.6, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasiya. He further contends that an amendment was sought by respondent No.6 seeking a relief of declaration in the year 2008.
Per contra, D.K. Srivastava, counsel appearing for respondent No.6 contends that petitioner has purchased the property in dispute on 03.01.175 through sale deed. The legal opinion was sought by the Nagar Panchayat and Executive Officer by order dated 14.11.2005 held that name of petitioner be expunged and name of respondent be mutated for purposes of house tax. Further the appeal filed by petitioner was rejected by order dated 02.01.2019 by District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar.
Shri Srivastava further contends that District Magistrate had categorically recorded a finding in favour of respondent No.6 that property in question belongs to the respondent No.6 on basis of the sale deed, so executed in the year 1975.
Refuting the submission so made by counsel for contesting respondent, Shri Arun Kumar, counsel for petitioner submits that the findings so recorded by the District Magistrate amounts to deciding the title which in a summary proceedings cannot be decided as civil suit between the parties is still pending and the respondent No.6 has sought for relief of declaration and is getting his plaint amended.
He further submits that entries so made in the revenue record stands final and further when the said land came within jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat, an assessment in favour of petitioner was made and he has been regularly paying tax to the Nagar Panchayat.
Matter requires consideration.
Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondent No.6 within four weeks. A week's time to file rejoinder affidavit.
As an interim measure the parties are directed to maintain status quo in regard to the property in dispute.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 A.N. Mishra