Allowed¶13

Smt. Vimla Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020WRIC/18637/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Smt. Vimla Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others; WRIT - C No. 18637 of 2020; decided 15.12.2020; Siddhartha Varma, J.; Gaon Sabha possession proceedings against Mithai Lal and Ram Briksha; Tehsildar order 11.09.2019 and District Magistrate order 18.03.2020 set aside; Commissioner's order 14.06.2019 established lawful possession of petitioner no.1; non-correction of Revenue Records; Para 39 U.P. Revenue Court Manual; direction to incorporate order in Revenue Records.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders of the Tehsildar (11.09.2019) and the District Magistrate (18.03.2020) set aside; Tehsil Authorities directed to incorporate the order dated 14.06.2019 in the Revenue Records forthwith. ¶13

Smt. Vimla Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18637 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Vimla Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

The defect, if any, pointed out by the Stamp Reporter may be rectified by the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

¶6

Instructions filed today by the learned Standing Counsel be kept on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Tehsildar which was affirmed by the District Magistrate, on 18.03.2020. The petitioner no.1 Smt. Vimla Devi has filed the instant writ petition along with her husband i.e. the petitioner no.2 Sri Ram Briksha and has submitted that even though the property belonged to her and not to Mithai Lal or Ram Briksha, petitioner no.2 the notices were sent to them and orders were also passed deeming that the property belonged to them. It has been submitted that by an order of the Commissioner dated 14.06.2019, the property had to be entered in the name of the petitioner no.1 and because of the fact that the Revenue Records were not corrected and the name of petitioner no.1 was not incorporated therein, the

¶8

property was treated as that of the Gaon Sabha and possession of the Mithai Lal and Ram Briksha was asked to be removed.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that had the order dated 14.06.2019 been incorporated in the Revenue Records, the impugned order would not have been passed.

¶10

Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that inadvertently, the order dated 14.06.2019 could be incorporated in the Revenue Records and, therefore, the problem occurred. He has submitted that it was the pious duty of the Commissioner to have forwarded his order to the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of Para 39 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, this much becomes clear that if the Tehsildar and the District Magistrate had access to the order dated 14.06.2019 then the proceedings against Mithai Lal and Ram Briksha would not have proceeded at all. They would have found that as per the order dated 14.06.2019, petitioner no.1 was legally in possession. Since the order dated 14.06.2019 was not available, the impugned orders were passed by the Tehsildar and the District Magistrate on 11.09.2019 and 18.03.2020, respectively. This Court is of the view, the

¶12

existence of the order dated 14.06.2019 clearly established lawful possession of the petitioner no.1 and, therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar on 11.09.2019 which was affirmed by the order passed by the District Magistrate on 18.03.2020 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

¶13

The writ petition thus stands allowed. Impugned orders dated 11.09.2020 and 18.03.2020 passed by the Tehsildar and the District Magistrate, respectively, are hereby set aside.

¶14

The Tehsil Authorities also to see that the order dated 14.06.2019 is incorporated in the Revenue Records forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.12.2020 Siddhant

Smt. Vimla Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimla Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Pal Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Ramakant Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Patti Devi Vs Sharda Prasad and 9 Others

Shobhnath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shivratan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Narayan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others