Dismissed

Kripal Singh v. Dhari Singh and 6 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019WRIC/49892/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging orders rejecting an application for a survey commission in a civil dispute over land boundaries and alleged encroachment. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that a public road existed between the plots placed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by Kripal Singh praying for a survey commission was dismissed.

Kripal Singh Vs Dhari Singh and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49892 of 2013 Petitioner :- Kripal Singh Respondent :- Dhari Singh And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶2

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶3

The present petition is directed against the orders dated 16.07.2013 and 12.03.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Bijnor and Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagina, Bijnor in Original Suit No.72 of 2010 (Kripal Singh Vs. Dhari Singh and others); respectively.

¶4

By means of the order impugned, the application 41-Ga moved by the plaintiff for issuance of Survey Commission for spot inspection of Arazi Khata No.29 area 1.1320 hectares, Mauja, Sultanpur, has been rejected. The said application was moved by the plaintiff with the assertion that the defendants have encroached over the portion of Khata No.29 and it is necessary to locate the said plot by issuance of Survey Commission. The defendants on the other hand, had objected the said application on the ground that the disputed property is a public passage and had been constructed by the State Authorities under MANREGA. The plaintiff has merged a portion of the suit property in his field and in order to avoid any proceeding of eviction a prayer has been made to issue Survey Commission. For any dispute raised by the petitioner regarding the measurement of the public road, running adjacent to his plot only course open for the petitioner was to seek measurement by invoking provision of Section 41 of Land Revenue Act.

¶5

The trial court after perusal of the record has found that there exists a public rasta in between the plots of the plaintiff and of the defendants which are on the opposite sides. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of Khata No.29 and in view of the fact that there exists a public passage in between the plot of the plaintiff and defendants, there was no occasion for issuance of Survey Commission. Prayer made by the petitioner/ plaintiff is only to linger on the proceedings of the suit. This finding returned by the trial court has been affirmed by the revisional court. Learned counsel for the also could not assail the said finding. Only submission made by him was that the trial court has rejected the request for issuance of survey commission on the wrong premise that proceeding under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act ought to have been taken. For proper decision of the controversy in the instant suit, the issuance of survey commission was necessary.

¶6

Having gone through the pleadings of learned counsel for the parties in the plaint and the written statement, the finding returned by the trial court that there exists public road which was constructed out of MANREGA fund in between the plots of the plaintiff and the defendant is found to be substantiated from the record.

¶7

No plausible objection could be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the said finding.

¶8

No infirmity, therefore, can be attached to the order impugned.

¶9

The present petition is dismissed, accordingly.

¶10

Order Date :- 6.2.2019/ Radhika

Kripal Singh v. Dhari Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripal Singh v. Dhari Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sunder Verma Vs State of U.P. through D.M. Sant Kabir Nagar and 14 Others

Ram Garib Vs Lal Bahadur and Another

Ramakshaibar Vs Kattu and 6 Others

Workman of M/S Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Pratap Singh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Workmen of M/S Yamaha Motors Private Limited and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Malti Devi Vs Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi