The Allahabad High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging construction over disputed land and delay in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The court declined to interfere as the statutory mechanism under Section 116 and Section 117 was available.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 925 of 2021 Petitioner :- Siya Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4.
Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents specially the Up-Zilaadhikari, Baberu to restrain respondents no. 5 to 14 for constructions over the land in dispute and be ensured the order dated 26.10.2019 passed by the Up-Zilaadhikari, Baberu, Banda, on the application under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to make disposal of the application under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, within stipulated period."
At the very outset learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that once the proceedings are pending before the respondent no.3/Up- Ziladhikari, Baberu, District- Banda, for consideration under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the injunction has already been accorded in favour of the petitioner. In absence of any notice to the private respondent, no reprieve can be extended to the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, after perusing the record we find that admittedly proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending consideration, whereas Section 117 provides that in every suit for division of holding under Section 116 the Court, Assistant Collector shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and he shall apportion the land revenue payable in respect of each such division. Suit for division of holding referred to in Section 116 shall not affect the joint liability of the tenure-holders there of in respect of the land revenue payable before the date of the final decree.
Once a full fledged mechanism is provided therein, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Suffice to indicate that the entire exercise is to be undertaken strictly in accordance with
law holding the field.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Ishan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding propagation of construction over disputed land and delay in disposal of Section 116 application is maintainable.
Whether this Court should interfere in proceedings pending under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where an injunction has been accorded.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Siya Rani
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
