Dismissed

Nawab Ali Siddiqui v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Member Judical, Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023/5689/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Board of Revenue's refusal to grant interim protection, alleging a sale deed dispute. The court held the impugned order justifiable, applied principles regarding non-interference with discretionary decisions, and dismissed the petition, suggesting the petitioner file a regular suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to file a regular suit for declaration of rights over the disputed property.

Nawab Ali Siddiqui Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Member… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44929

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5689 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Nawab Ali Siddiqui Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P., Member Judical, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak,Vijay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

In view of the order proposed, issuance of notices to private respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Case No. R20230404001249 of 2023 (Nawab Ali Siddiqui Versus Praveen Kumar Singh) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"), whereby the Board of Revenue,Lucknow, declined to grant the interim protection to the petitioner after recording a finding to the effect that the sale deed was executed in the name of the Firm and Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya vide order dated 15.03.2023 directed the revenue Officials to record the name of the Firm in the revenue records.

¶9

On being asked as to whether the sale deed was executed in the name of Firm, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that sale deed was executed in favour of the Firm namely M/s Saket Surgical Pvt. Ltd.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that order in issue is justifiable, moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court also says that granting and refusing of interim order is the discretion of the Authority/Court concerned and it should not be interfered. On the scope of interference with discretionary orders even in appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds thus, in Wander v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.; 1990 Supp SCC 727 :

¶11

"13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately.

¶12

14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant

¶13

or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156] : (SCR 721)

¶14

"... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] '...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'."

¶15

The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle."

¶16

Taking note of the aforesaid principles as also the findings recorded by the opposite party no.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the order dated 14.06.2023. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to file a regular suit for declaration of his Right over the property in dispute.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.7.2023

¶18

Jyoti/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nawab Ali Siddiqui v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Member Judical, Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawab Ali Siddiqui v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Member Judical, Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Jatan and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad

Janak Dulari and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao and Another

Smt Bifai Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Amrawati Vs Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 3 Others

Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui Vs Addl.Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and 6 Others

Sant Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others