Allowed

Paramhans v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021WRIC/10019/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order granted a miscellaneous correction to dispose of a connected writ petition. The High Court set aside a revisional order that had stayed civil suit proceedings pending a separate writ petition regarding Tenancy Act mutation, holding such a direction erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The revisional order dated 17 February 2021 is set aside and quashed, and the writ petition is allowed.

Paramhans Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10019 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Paramhans Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun K. Singh Deshwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Ref: Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2021.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

It is urged that the instant petition was connected with Writ-C No. 46612 of 2013 (Paramhans Singh vs. Commissioner Azamgarh). After hearing the counsels for the parties, leading petition bearing Writ-C No. 10006 of 2021 (Paramhans vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others) was disposed of vide order dated 3 August 2021, along with the connected petitions, but, inadvertently, the order could not be transcribed in the instant petition. This fact is not being disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

In view thereof, correction application is allowed, by passing the following order:

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

Notice is not being issued to the fourth and fifth respondent. It is informed that they had not filed revision against the order of the trial court.

¶11

Petitioner-plaintiff is assailing the order dated 17 February 2021 passed by the second respondent, revisional court/Additional (Judicial) Commissioner, Azamgarh, in Revision No. 128/131/145/174/180/202/253/M (Case No. 700/2015),, whereby, the order dated 13 April 2015, passed by the third respondent-trial court/Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mau restoring the suit to its original file and number, has been set aside. The matter has been remanded to the trial court to decide the suit afresh. A further a direction has been issued to keep the suit proceedings in abeyance pending decision in the petition being Writ Petition No. 46612 of 2013 (Paramhans Singh vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh and others).

¶12

In respect of Plot No. 8 ad-measuring 2.561 hectare, situated in Mauja Belchaura, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Mau, petitioner instituted a suit being Suit No. 157/172 against the contesting respondents seeking declaration under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950. The sixth respondent appeared and filed written statement, whereas, fourth and fifth respondents have not put in appearance, who are subsequent purchasers of the property from the sixth respondent.

¶13

The suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 5 September 2008. A restoration application came to be filed after four years on 5 October 2012. Against the restoration application, the sixth respondent filed objections. The trial court restored the suit vide order dated 13 April 2015. Aggrieved, the sixth respondent carried the order in revision. The revisional court by the impugned order dated 17 February 2021, set aside the order of restoration and further directed that the suit proceedings be kept in abeyance pending decision in proceedings arising under the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Previleges) Act, 1949 (For short 'Tenancy Act'), pending before this Court.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court committed an error while remanding the matter, directing that the proceedings be kept in abeyance. It is urged that the proceedings arising under the Tenancy Act is in the nature of mutation proceedings and would have no bearing on the declaratory suit. In the said proceedings, it is alleged that the name of the father of the sixth respondent was wrongly entered. The application of the petitioner to correct record under the Tenancy Act came to be rejected. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a writ petition which is pending.

¶15

It is urged that mere pendency of proceedings before this Court arising from the Tenancy Act would not determine the tile of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. In any case, the contesting respondents would have an opportunity to raise all issues before the trial court, including, maintainability of the suit in view of the orders passed under the Tenancy Act. The writ Court would not declare the title of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submits that the restoration application was filed belatedly after four years; petitioner was contesting parallel civil proceedings in various courts but deliberately did not file any restoration application. On specific query, he submits that till date issues have not been framed in the suit. In the circumstances, petitioner would have a right to institute a fresh suit.

¶17

Be that as it may the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the order while remanding the matter to the trial court to decide the restoration application afresh, the revisional court committed an error in directing the trial court to keep the suit in abeyance pending outcome of the writ petition arising from the Tenancy Act. The impugned order dated 17 February 2021 passed by the second respondent, revisional court/Additional (Judicial) Commissioner, Azamgarh is accordingly, set aside and quashed.

¶18

The writ petition is allowed.

¶19

It will be open for the contesting parties to the suit to raise objections on merit and on maintainability of the suit."

¶20

Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Mukesh Kr.

Paramhans v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramhans v. State of U.P. and 12 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

Madrasi @ Madraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sohan Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt.Anupriya @Sakshi Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

C/M Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Runjhum Tripathi Vs Madhyamik Shiksha Parisad and 3 Others