Allowed

Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2019WRIB/2115/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking an order to direct the Board of Revenue to decide a pending revision application within three months, filed on the petitioner's behalf as counsel was absent from the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board of Revenue at Allahabad to decide Revision No. 1878 of 2017 within three months.

Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh Vs Board of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2115 of 2019

¶2

Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶4

Case called on. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner.

¶5

Sri Satish Mohan Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 1.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking relief of a limited nature which is to direct respondent no. 1, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, to decide Revision No. 1878 of 2017 'Natthu & another vs. Ram Pratap Singh @ Bhagwat Singh' expeditiously within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff of Suit No. 86/2006-07, under Section 229-B U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act that was brought before the Pargana Adhikari, Talbehat, District Lalitpur, seeking declaration of title in suit property there. The suit aforesaid was dismissed by the Pargana Adhikari, Talbehat, District Lalitpur by his judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 15.09.2015. The said appeal was numbered on the file of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi as Appeal No. 32 of 2014-15 'Ram Pratap Singh @ Bhagwat Singh vs. Natthu & others'. Pending this appeal, it is stated in paragraph no. 6 to this petition that on 21.04.2017, the petitioner made a substitution

¶8

application seeking to delete the name of one, Parikshit from the array of parties. The basis of this application was that the heirs and legal representatives of this deceasedrespondent no. 5 were already on record and represented in the appeal. The said application was allowed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide order dated 10.07.2017. The defendant, in order to delay the hearing of the appeal, proceeded to file a Revision to the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad on 27.08.2017 from the order of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 10.07.2017 last mentioned. The order sheet of the said Revision has been filed as annexure no. 3 to this writ petition. A perusal of the order sheet shows that post filing, the Revision was adjourned on the first three dates and was taken up for admission on 23.10.2017. On the said date, records of the lower court have been summoned and the Revision was posted to 27.11.2017. Notice by registered post was ordered to issue to the respondents of whom the petitioner would be the one contesting. Thereafter, a perusal of the order sheet shows that the case has been adjourned, rather eventlessly on most of the dates, without giving reasons for the adjournment being mentioned.

¶9

Bearing in mind the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, this Court does not consider appropriate to issue notice to the respondents in the second and third set, inasmuch as no determination of rights of parties is being made here. In case, however, any of the respondents in the second and third set feel aggrieved by this order, it would be open to them to make an application in this

¶10

decided petition.

¶11

Considering the fact that the Revision is one preferred from an interlocutory order which is merely to delete a party from the array of the petitioner's pending appeal said to be already represented on record, it would be in the interest of justice that the Board of Revenue, UP at Allahabad are directed to decide the Revision No. 1878 of 2017 'Natthu & another vs. Ram Pratap Singh @ Bhagwat Singh' within a period of three months next from the production of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the order above made.

¶13

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.9.2019 Deepak

Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nihore and Others Vs Ajayab Lal

Jauhari Vs State of U.P.

Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur Thru Nagar Ayukt Vs Ram Adhar and Others

Madan Mohan Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 6 Others

Surya Bali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Alok Vs Naib Tehsildar and Another