Disposed

Prem Nath and 12 Others v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Mirzapur and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2020WRIC/7932/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Magistrate to expedite a pending interim injunction application in a revenue suit concerning disputed land. The Court ordered the Nagar Palika Parishad to maintain the status quo over the plot until the injunction is decided and instructed the revenue court to decide the matter within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondent-2 to expedite and dispose of pending interim injunction application within six weeks; directs respondents to maintain status quo till decided;

Prem Nath and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. through… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7932 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Prem Nath And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate, Mirzapur And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Bahadur

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent nos.3 and 4 not to construct any road by themselves or by their agents over disputed plot no.73 area 0.443 hectare situated in village Abakpur Muhana, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur in Original Suit No.7150 of 2015 (Computer Suit No.T20151653047150) under section 59/60 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

¶6

Perusal of the record would go to show that in respect of plot in question the plaintiff-petitioners earlier instituted Original Suit No.167 of 2010 wherein initially an order of injunction was passed in their favour but the same was reversed in appeal. The plaintiff-petitioners challenged the order passed in appeal in Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India No.6898 of 2019 which was finally disposed of with consent of the parties vide following order passed on 27.9.2019:-

¶7

"Heard Shri A.C.Tiwari and Shri Krishna Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Staterespondents.

¶8

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 21.08.2019 whereby the appellate court has allowed Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2016 and has set aside the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the trial court granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners in Original Suit No. 167 of 2010.

¶9

The case of the plaintiff-petitioners was that they were recorded as Shikmi in the revenue records since the time of their ancestors. A suit at their instance under Section 59/60 for declaration under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1939) is pending before the Collector. During pendency of the said suit, the Lekhpal expunged the entry of Shikmi from revenue records and entered the name of the State Government. Soon thereafter, there was threat of dispossession of the petitioners and consequently the suit for permanent injunction was instituted.

¶10

The defendants contested the suit claiming title to the suit property. Their claim was based on the entry made by the Lekhpal in revenue records in the year 2010 i.e. during pendency of the suit before the Collector under Section 59/60 of the Act, 1939.

¶11

In course of the suit, the trial court passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and aggrieved thereby the defendants filed an

¶12

appeal before the court below which has been allowed by the impugned order.

¶13

After the parties were heard at length, they agreed for disposal of the instant petition in following terms :-

¶14

(a) Shri A.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has given an undertaking that the plaintiff-petitioners would withdraw their suit.

¶15

(b) Upon withdrawal of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioners would file an application seeking temporary injunction in suit pending before the Collector under Section 59/60 of the Act, 1939.

¶16

(c) The Collector be directed to decide the application without being influenced by the instant order or the impugned order passed by the appellate court as well as the order passed by the trial court.It is ordered accordingly.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of."

¶18

Petitioners assert that they have moved an application for withdrawal of suit filed before the civil court whereafter an application for injunction has also been filed in the pending revenue suit in terms of the liberty granted by this Court.

¶19

Although learned counsel for the petitioners states that civil suit has been withdrawn but no such order has been brought on record of the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners nevertheless submits that petitioners have filed an application thereafter for interim injunction in the revenue suit but the concerned court is yet to pass any order in the matter. It is in this factual backdrop that the present petition has been filed for restraining the defendant-respondents in the revenue suit from proceeding to make any construction of road upon the disputed plot for which plaintiff-petitioners have sought injunction in the revenue suit.

¶20

Interim injunction application has been filed on 4.11.2019. The order sheet of revenue suit has been annexed as Annexure-17. Its perusal would go to show that on four dates when the matter was fixed for hearing the lawyers remained on strike and as such no effective hearing appears to have taken place in the matter. The petitioners further assert that the respondent nos.3 and 4 have proceeded with the construction of road and consequently a fresh application has been filed before the revenue court on 5.2.2020 on which some report appears to have been called.

¶21

Sri Rakesh Bahadur, who has appeared for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that no construction has been raised by the Nagar Palika Parishad upon plot no.73 area 0.443 hectare which is subject matter of issue before the revenue court. It is also submitted that upon some objection raised the revenue authorities have inspected the spot and a report has also been submitted on 28.2.2020 as per which also no constructions are

¶22

being raised over plot no.73 area 0.443 hectare.

¶23

Be that as it may, this Court finds that in the pending revenue suit an interim injunction application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners which has remained pending without any orders being passed upon it by the competent court. This Court is not required to enter into issues of fact, particularly whether any constructions have been made upon plot no.73 area 0.443 hectare by the respondent nos.3 and 4, at this stage, particularly when the competent court is yet to examine the issue on merits. It is otherwise the specific case of respondent nos.3 and 4 that they are not raising any construction over the plot in question.

¶24

In such circumstances, ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondent no.2 to expedite and dispose of the pending interim injunction application filed in the revenue suit, at the earliest possible. The Nagar Palika Parishad as also the State authorities shall file their objection within a period of three weeks from today to the interim injunction application unless such an objection has already been filed. The plaintiff-petitioners may file their reply within a week, thereafter. The revenue court shall dispose of the interim injunction application pending in the revenue suit within a further period of six weeks, thereafter. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that no constructions are being raised over the plot no.73 area 0.443 hectare, the respondents shall maintain status-quo over the plot in question till the interim injunction application is finally decided. The revenue court shall proceed to examine the issue on merits, independently, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.6.2020 Ashok Kr.

Prem Nath and 12 Others v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Mirzapur and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath and 12 Others v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Mirzapur and 4 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

Mohd Janib Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarvada Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Narayan Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhola Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others