Allowed

Dalchandra and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2021WRIC/20399/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged a writ petition seeking mutation in revenue records. It directed the Tehsildar to implement the affirmed 1992 Sub Divisional Magistrate judgment despite a pending restoration application before the Board of Revenue.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directed the Tehsildar to mutate names consistent with the affirmed 1992 judgment within one month; directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending restoration application within

Dalchandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20399 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dalchandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Agarwal,Virpratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kamta Prasad

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Despite repeated opportunities to the respondents to file counter affidavit, no counter affidavit is forth coming.

¶5

Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kamta Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 is present. The matter is being heard on merits. The prayer for adjournment on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 is rejected.

¶6

By the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 the application of the petitioner to make necessary mutation in the revenue records consistent with the judgment of the trial court in proceedings taken out under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been declined. The order dated 28.03.2016 records that since a restoration application of the review application is pending before the Board of Revenue, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rath, District Hamirpur, dated 27.04.1992 in proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be implemented.

¶7

The reasoning is misconceived. Mere pendency of a restoration application to the review application before the Board of Revenue cannot prevent the implementation of the judgment of the Sub Divisional Magistrate rendered on 27.04.1992. This particularly when no interim order is operating against the petitioner.

¶8

It is undisputed that both the appellate courts had affirmed the judgment of the trial court by orders dated 17.03.1994 and 21.10.2005.

¶9

A writ of mandamus is issued directing the Tehsildar, Rath, District Hamirpur to mutate the names of the petitioners consistent with the judgment dated 27.04.1992 returned by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rath, District Hamirpur and duly affirmed by the appellate court by judgments dated 17.03.1994 and 21.10.2005, within a period of one month.

¶10

The writ petition is allowed. This is without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the restoration application of the review application before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the restoration application within a period of six months after hearing all necessary parties.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Pravin

Dalchandra and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalchandra and Another v. State of U.P. 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

M/S Divya Enterprises and Another Vs State Bank of India and Another

Dhruv Narayan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

S.S.D. College of Higher Education and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Lali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukhpal Singh Vs State of U.P.