Dismissed

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023WRIB/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses petitioners' amendment applications to revive writ petitions against Board of Revenue orders, holding them infructuous as the final revision was decided. However, the court grants a four-month interim status quo to protect the property and prevent creation of third-party rights.

What did the court decide?

Amendment applications rejected; writ petitions dismissed; interim direction granted for four months to maintain status quo and prohibit creation of third-party rights.

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya and 2 Others Vs State of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:129868 RESERVED

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

(1) Case :- WRIT - B No. - 218 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritvik Upadhya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Singh,Saurabh Raj Srivastava

¶6

Alongwith

¶7

(2) Case :- WRIT – B No. 3639 of 2022

¶8

Petitioner :- Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritvik Upadhya,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Singh,Saurabh Raj Srivastava

¶9

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶10

Heard Shri V.K. Upadhya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

¶11

The aforesaid writ petition of 2023 was filed on 17.1.2023 seeking the following reliefs:

¶12

“i) issue suitable order or direction suitably modifying the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.11.2022 by including therein the direction that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute being Khata No. 00134 situate at Mauja- Kodopur, Pargana Ramnagar, Tehsil and District Varanasi during the pendency of the Appeal/Case No. 1652/2022, Computer Case No.: D202214700001652 Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya Vs. Dr Anant Narain Singh u/s 207 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi Division, Varanasi.

¶13

¶14

ii) a suitable order or direction setting aside the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal/Case No. 1652/2022, Computer Case No.: D202214700001652 Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya Vs. Dr. Anant Narain Singh u/s 207 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.

¶15

iii) issue suitable order or direction setting aside the order dated 16.03.2022 of the Naib Tehsildar, City, Division Varanasi, District Varanasi, Tehsil Sadar, respondent no. 3, in Case no. 00052 of 2021, Computerized Case No. T202114700100052, Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya Vs. Maharaja Anant Narain Singh.

¶16

iv) issue suitable order or direction to prohibit/restrain the respondent No. 4 from alienating, in any manner whatsoever, any part of the property in dispute and/or creating in any manner whatsoever, third party interest over any part of the property in dispute and be further pleased to set aside the order dated 08.08.2001 of the Revenue Inspector of mutation of respondent No. 4 as the sole Bhumidhar in the Fasli Year 1405-1410 and be further pleased to prohibit any further mutation of any name of any person in the revenue records in respect of the property in dispute.

¶17

v) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶18

The aforesaid writ petition of 2022 arises out of an order of 24.11.2022 in another revision filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue which is in respect of properties pertaining to Khata No.00036 situate at Mauja-Kutlupur, Pargana Ramnagar, tehsil and district Varanasi.

¶19

When the matter was listed on 20.1.2023, the following order was passed in the writ petition of 2023:

¶20

“It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that identical matter is already under consideration before this Court in Writ-B No.3639 of 2022 (Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others). It is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition is already entertained by this Court and interim order granted to protect the property in question vide order dated 21.12.2022.

¶21

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioners has prayed to granted an interim order in the instant writ petition as well.

¶22

Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are represented through learned standing counsel.

¶23

Issue notice to the respondent No. 4 through R.P.A.D. fixing 24.03.2023. Steps shall be taken within 15 working days.

¶24

¶25

In the meantime, parties shall exchange their respective affidavits, if any. Interim order dated 21.12.2022 as granted in Writ-B No.3639 of 2022 shall also be operative in the instant writ petition.

¶26

It is further made clear that pendency of the instant writ petition will not impend the further proceedings going on before the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3408/22/Varanasi (Computer Case No. AL20221470003408). The Board of Revenue is free to proceed with the revision on its own merits and shall make all sincere endeavour to decide the aforesaid revision expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it, which should be filed by the petitioners within twenty days from today.”

¶27

Since, the aforesaid order was based on order dated 21.12.2022 in connected writ petition of 2022, the order passed in the connected petition is also quoted below:

¶28

“Instant writ petition is nominated to this Bench vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

¶29

Instant writ petition is arising out of mutation proceeding under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the interlocutory order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3407/22/Varanasi, by which revision before the Board of Revenue filed on behalf of the petitioners has been ordered to be admitted and notices were ordered to be issued to serve the respondents as well as record of the courts below were also ordered to be summoned.

¶30

Grievance of the petitioners is that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent no. 5 is miserably failed to grant an interim relief in favour of the petitioners to protect the property in question, which is at the verge of destruction in the hands of respondent no. 4.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mutation application moved on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 16.03.2022. Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Tehsildar, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (respondent no. 2). While entertaining the appeal, respondent no. 2 has granted interim order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure No. 25) staying the effect and operation of the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Tehsildar and also issued a direction for maintaining status quo on spot. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has illegally vacated the interim order dated 25.04.2022 by its subsequent order dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure No. 1). Having been aggrieved against the order dated 03.10.2022, the petitioners have preferred revision before the Board of

¶32

¶33

Revenue (respondent no. 5), which has passed the order impugned dated 24.11.2022.

¶34

It is further submitted that respondent no. 4 is throughout alienating the property in question which would cause multiplicity of proceeding and severely prejudice the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the property in question. To avoid the civil consequences, after admission of revision, grant of interim order cannot be averted. It is further submitted that to protect the property in question interim relief is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner, otherwise very purpose of filing the instant petition will be frustrated.

¶35

The matter requires consideration.

¶36

Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are represented through learned Standing Counsel.

¶37

Issue notice to respondent no. 4 through R.P.A.D. fixing 23.02.2023 as the date.

¶38

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be befitting to issue an interim relief in favour of the petitioners to protect the property in question. Therefore, till the next date of listing, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the possession and nature of the property in question. It is further made clear that no third party right shall be created over there.

¶39

It is further made clear that pendency of the instant writ petition will not impend the further proceedings going on before the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3407/22/Varanasi (Computer Case No. AL20221470003407). The Board of Revenue is free to proceed with the revision on its own merits and shall make all sincere endeavour to decide the aforesaid revision expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it, which should be filed by the petitioners within twenty days from today.”

¶40

The aforesaid writ petitions arise out of mutation proceeding under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006¹ . Under challenge are the interlocutory orders passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3407/22/Varanasi and in Revision No. 3408/22/Varanasi. By means of the aforesaid orders of the Board of Revenue the revisions were admitted and notices were ordered to be issued and the records of the court below were also ordered to be summoned. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 5, Board of Revenue did not grant an interim order in favour of the petitioners to protect the properties in question which are on

¶41

1 Code of 2006

¶42

¶43

the verge of destruction in the hands of the respondent no. 4. Accordingly, while issuing notices to the respondent no. 4, interim orders were passed in the writ petitions in favour of the petitioners to protect the property in question and parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the possession and nature of the property in question. It was further directed that no third party rights shall be created. It was left open for the Board of Revenue to proceed with the revisions on their own merits and endeavour to decide the revisions expeditiously. It appears that the aforesaid revisions were decided by the Board of Revenue by a common order dated 20.3.2023. The operative part of the final order of the Board of Revenue dated 20.3.2023 is as under:

¶44

“उपरो्ሹ वቓኌ�त तथ्यों से स्प्ቖ है कि� कि�गरा�ी�ता� �े तहसीलदार न्यायालय में अपंजी�ृत पारिरवारिर� सटेलमेन्ट किद�ां� 16-07-1970 �ी छाया्ቚतित ्ቚस्तुत �र अन्तग�त धारा 34/35 उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश राजस्व संकिहता 2006 वाद योजिजत �र �थ� कि�या कि� उ्ሹ पारिरवारिर� सटेलमेन्ट �े आधार पर खतौ�ी व्ቧ� 1405-1410 फ 0 में दज� प� -11 �े आदेश �ो कि�रस्त कि�या जाये। तहसीलदार �े अप�े आदेश किद�ां� 16-03-2022 �े ्ቛारा उ्ቤेख कि�या कि� कि�गरा��ता� �े पारिरवारिर� सटेलमेन्ट �ी छाया्ቚतित न्यायालय �े सम्ቌ ्ቚस्तुत �र वरासत �ी �ाय�वाही कि�ये जा�े �ा अ�ुरोध कि�या है जबकि� कि�यमा�ुसार छाया्ቚतित साቌኚय अतिधकि�यम �े अन्तग�त ्ቇाहय �हीं होती है। साथ ही कि�गरा�ी�ता� �े जमींदारी किव�ाश अतिधकि�यम 1950 में व्ቧ� 2004 में संशोध� �े जरिरए अकिववाकिहत पुकि>यों �ो किपता �ी सम्पቈኌ्ቈ में वारिरस �ा अतिध�ार ्ቚदा� कि�या गया है जबकि� ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚ�र� किहन्दू उ्ቈरातिध�ार अतिधकि�यम �े अन्तग�त रेखांकि�त �रते हुए वरासत चाहा गया है उ्ሹ ्ቚ�र� जिसकिवल ्ቌे>ातिध�ार �े अन्तग�त आता है। उपरो्ሹ �थ� �े साथ तहसीलदार �े अप�े आदेश किद�ां� 16-03-2022 �े ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत �ामान्तर� ्ቚाथ � ा प> पो्ቧ�ीय � हो�े �े �ार� कि�रस्त �र �ोई >ुकिट �हीं �ी है। साथ ही तहसीलदार ्ቛारा पारिरत आदेश किद�ां� 16-03-2022 �े किवरु्ቍ उपजिजलातिध�ारी न्यायालय में योजिजत वाद में उपजिजलातिध�ारी ्ቛारा पारिरत स्थग� आदेश किद�ां� 25-04-2022 �े ्ቚभावी रह�े �े दौरा�्ቚ तितप्ቌी ्ቛारा वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम �ो किव्ቅय कि�ये जा�े से ्ቌुब्द हो�र कि�गरा�ी�ता� ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत्ቚ ाथ � ा प> किद�ां� 26-09-2022 �ो उपजिजलातिध�ारी �े कि�रस्त �र �ोई >ुकिट �हीं �ी है। क्योंकि� उपजिजलातिध�ारी �े अप�े आदेश किद�ां� 25-04-2022 �े ्ቛारा उभयप्ቌ �ो वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम पर यथाቝኌस्थतित ब�ाये रख�े �े ቈኌलए कि�दKशिशत कि�या गया था। यथाቝኌस्थतित ब�ाये रख�े �ा आशय होता है कि� उभयप्ቌ ए� दूसरे �े �ब्जे में दखल �हीं �रेंगे। यथाቝኌस्थतित �ा आदेश कि�सी प्ቌ �ो अप�े �ब्जे �ी भूकिम �ो किव्ቅय �र�े से कि�्ቧेतिधत �हीं �रता है। चूं�ी वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम पर ्ቚतितप्ቌी �ो सं्ቅम�ीय भूकिमधर अतिध�ार वरासत� ्ቚा्቎ हैं और उ��ा �ाम वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम पर राजस्व अशिभलेखों में अंकि�त है। अतः ्ቚतितप्ቌी ्ቛारा उपजिजलातिध�ारी �े यथाቝኌस्थतित �ा आदेश ्ቚभावी रह�े �े दौरा� वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम �ो किव्ቅय �र कि�सी ्ቚ�ार से न्यायालय �े आदेश �ी अवहेल�ा �हीं �ी है। साथ ही उपजिजलातिध�ारी ्ቛारा पारिरत स्थग� आदेश में तहसीलदार्ቛ ारा पारिरत आदेश किद�ां� 16-03-2022 �ा कि्ቅयान्वय� स्थकिगत कि�या गया है। तहसीलदार ्ቛारा पारिरत आदेश किद�ां� 16-03-2022 �े ्ቛारा कि�गरा�ी�ता� ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚाथ � ा प> �ो कि�रस्त कि�या गया है, जिजस�े कि्ቅयान्वय� स्थकिगत कि�ये जा�े से कि�सी ्ቚ�ार से ्ቚतितप्ቌी �ा वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम पर सं्ቅम�ीय भूकिमधर अतिध�ार किवखቝኌQRत �हीं होते हैं और � ही ्ቚतितप्ቌीग� वाद्ቇस्त भूकिम �ी किव्ቅय कि�ये जा�े से कि�्ቧेतिधत कि�ये गये हैं। क्योंकि� ्ቚतितप्ቌी वाद्ቇस्ते भूकिम पर तहसीलदार ्ቛारा पारिरत आदेश से पूव� ही सं्ቅम�ीय भूकिमधर �े रूप में वरासत� दज� हैं। अतः उपजिजलातिध�ारी �े अप�े आदेश किद�ां� 03-10-2022 �े ्ቛारा कि�गरा�ी�ता� ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚाथ � ा प> किद�ां� 26-09-2022 �ो कि�रस्त �र �ोई >ुकिट �हीं �ी है। उपजिजलातिध�ारी ्ቛारा पारिरत

¶45

¶46

आदेश किद�ां� 03-10-2022 ए� अन्तवतT ्ቚ�ृतित �ा आदेश है जिजस�े ्ቅ म में उभयप्ቌ �ो साቌኚय ्ቚस्तुत �र�े व सु�वाई �ा समुतिचत अवसर उपलब्ध है और वाद �ो गु� दो्ቧ पर कि�स्तारिरत कि�या जा�ा शे्ቧ है।

¶47

उपरो्ሹ किववेच�ा �े आधार पर ्ቚस्तुत कि�गरा�ी बलही� एवं सारही� हो�े �े �ार� कि�रस्त कि�ये जा�े योग्य है।

¶48

अतः ्ቚस्तूत कि�गरा�ी बलही� एवं सारही� हो�े �े �ार� कि�रस्त �ी जाती है। उपजिजलातिध�ारी ज�पद वारा�सी �ो कि�दKशिशत कि�या जाता है कि� ्ቚ्቞ गत ्ቚ�र� �ो 2 माह में कि�स्तारिरत �रें। कि�गरा�ी �े लम्ब��ाल में यकिद �ोई स्थग� आदेश पारिरत कि�या गया है तो उसे इस आदेश से कि�रस्त मा�ा जायेगा। अधी�स्थ न्यायालय �े अशिभलेख वापस कि�ये जायें। वाद आवश्य� �ाय�वाही प>ावली दाቈኌखल दफतर हो ।

¶49

यह आदेश कि�गरा�ी संख्या 3407 व्ቧ� 2022 पर भी ्ቚभावी होगा।”

¶50

Thereafter on 27.3.2023, amendment applications on behalf of the petitioners were filed in each of the aforesaid writ petitions seeking permission to amend the aforesaid writ petitions. The amendments are stated in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavits accompanying the applications. The amendments sought to be incorporated in the aforesaid writ petitions are basically for challenging the orders dated 20.3.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue deciding the two revisions pending before it. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed by the petitioners being aggrieved in view of the Board of Revenue not granting any interim orders in favour of the petitioners while admitting the revisions by means of order dated 24.11.2022. As is evident from the operative part of the final orders of the Board of Revenue dated 20.3.2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer, District Varanasi was directed to dispose of the matter within two months. The proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, District Varanasi that were directed by the Board to be decided by means of the orders dated 20.3.2023 are appeals filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.3.2022 passed by the Naib Tehsildar dismissing the mutation applications of the petitioners as being not maintainable. A perusal of the order dated 16.3.2022 passed by the Naib Tehsildar reflects that the petitioners had filed a photocopy of an unregistered family settlement on the basis of which they staked their claim for mutation. It was held by the Naib Tehsildar that a photocopy of the family settlement would not be admissible in evidence.

¶51

¶52

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents have stated that they do no propose to file any counter affidavit to the amendment applications and that they be considered by this Court on the basis of the settled law on the question, and, that they intend to oppose the applications on the basis of the material on record. The learned counsel for both the parties have consented to the amendment applications/writ petitions being heard at this stage for disposal.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the properties in question in the writ petition of 2023 pertains to Khata No. 134 in Village Kodopur. The writ petition of 2022 pertains to Khata No. 00036 in Village Mauja Kutlupur. It is stated that the properties in question were part of an oral family settlement dated 8.12.1969 which was subsequently recorded in writing by means of a memorandum of family settlement dated 19.7.1970. The petitioners filed applications under Section 34/35 of the Code of 2006 for mutation of the property pertaining to Khata No. 134 and 00036 aforesaid. Learned counsel has referred to the objections filed by the petitioners to an amendment dated 22.9.2021 filed by the respondent no. 4. It is contended that in the aforesaid objections categorical stand was put up by the petitioners that in the Fasli year 14051410 in Form No. प 0 � 0-11, the name of the respondent no. 4 was illegally recorded because the entire property of their predecessor was subject to a case under the Ceiling Act which was under consideration before the High Court and so no mutation could be done. The existence of the oral family settlement dated 18.12.1969 was referred to in which only a part of the properties found mention and the rest of the properties were of the undivided Hindu family and part of it was retained by the predecessors of the petitioners. Also referred to in the objections was the merger deed dated 5.9.1949 whereby the properties in question were allowed to be retained by the predecessors of the petitioners. Further referred to were the averments regarding the alleged fraudulent tactics resorted to by the respondent no. 4 in getting the mutation done in his

¶54

¶55

favour. It was further stated therein that property in question was not covered under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950² inasmuch as loan was availed of by the petitioners from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation on the security of the lands in question being held by them as bhumidhar and therefore, under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Act of 1950, the lands in question were not part of the lands that were covered by the Act, 1950. Learned counsel has referred to the response of the respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 25 to the writ petition) to contend that the family settlement was admitted by the respondent no. 4. It is further stated that it was not denied by the respondent no. 4 that the land in question is not covered by the Act, 1950.

¶56

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment application has been necessitated in view of the completely illegal order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 20.3.2023. It is contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom the appeal was filed by the petitioners had passed an order of status quo and in view of the dissipation of property thereafter by the respondent no. 4, application had been filed before the authority bringing to his notice the aforesaid fact. The authority proceeded to wrongly interpret the order of status quo and even vacated the order by means of the order dated 3.10.2022. It is stated that the Board of Revenue has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity by wrongly interpreting the order of status quo and holding that the respondent no. 4 was bhumidhar. It is stated that the mutation application on behalf of the petitioners was filed on the basis of a family settlement that was admitted by the respondent no. 4 and the Board has misdirected itself in discounting the family settlement on the ground that a photocopy of the same has been filed before the court below. It is stated that the case is covered under the exception carved out in the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board

¶57

2 Act, 1950

¶58

¶59

of Revenue and others³ . While pressing the amendment application, the learned counsel has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others⁴ (para 17 and 18) and the judgment in the matter of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others⁵ (para 67).

¶60

It is contended that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that amendments that do not change the nature of the suit and such amendments which will curtail prolonging of the suit, ought to be allowed in the interest of justice. It is contended that the Board of Revenue while rejecting the revision has, as a matter of fact, decided all questions that ought to have been decided by the appellate court and thereby rendered the decision in appeal to be a foregone conclusion.

¶61

In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others⁶ (para 30, 31, 37), A.V. Papayya Sastri and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others⁷ (para 20, 22, 23, 36), Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and others⁸ (para 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 136, 141, 142) and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nanha and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others⁹ (para 17).

¶62

Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents states that the matter arises out of mutation proceedings and the appeal filed by the petitioners is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer vacating the interim order, the revisions were filed before the Board. He has referred to the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions to contend that the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous in view of the final orders dated

¶63

3 2022 (4) ADJ 578

¶64

4 (2006) 4 SCC 385

¶65

5 (2009) 10 SCC 84

¶66

6 (2009) 10 SCC 388

¶67

7 (2007) 4 SCC 221

¶68

8 (1986) 1 SCC 133

¶69

9 AIR 1976 (Allahabad) 91

¶70

¶71

20.3.2023 passed by the Board. It it is stated since that the petitions have been rendered infructuous, no amendment application would be maintainable at this stage. It is contended that the amendment being sought would have the effect of changing the nature of the dispute. It is stated that since the mutation proceedings are pending, given the judgment of Smt. Kalawati (supra), no writ petition would anyway maintainable and as such it deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel has placed the order of the Board dated 20.3.2023 and contended that the Board while rejecting the revision, has directed the Sub-Divisional Officer before whom the appeal is pending, to decide the same within two months. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and others¹⁰ as well as judgment in Revajeetu Builders and Developers (supra). It has been contended that the relief no. 3 is subject matter of appeal that is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer.

¶72

No other arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶73

The aforesaid writ petitions were filed by the petitioners during pendency of their revisions before the Board of Revenue which has finally been decided by the orders dated 20.3.2023. The amendment applications have been filed by the petitioners evidently to breathe life into the writ petitions which have otherwise been rendered infructuous. The judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) cited by the petitioners would not be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in that judgment the Supreme Court was considering an amendment sought in the plaint in a suit. Be that as it may, an amendment can be allowed by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice. However, as it has been noticed above, the Board of Revenue by the orders dated 20.3.2023 had directed the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the appeal on

¶74

10 AIR 2022 SC 4256, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 Decided on 1.9.2022

¶75

¶76

merits and within a time bound period. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment sought for is refused and the amendment applications are, accordingly, rejected. The aforesaid two writ petitions are, therefore, rendered infructuous.

¶77

It shall, however, be open to the petitioners to plead their case before the Sub-Divisional Officer in the appeals (if pending) and the SubDivisional Officer, if has not already decided the appeals, shall proceed to decide them expeditiously in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made herein or by the Board of Revenue in its orders dated 20.3.2023.

¶78

In the interest of justice, it is directed that for a period of four months from today, the private-parties to the aforesaid writ petitions shall maintain status quo as on date and shall not create any third party rights. The aforesaid writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of .

¶79

Order Date :-03.07.2023 A. V. Singh

¶80

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶81

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and 5 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

Omji Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moti Lal Bheem Raj Charity Trust Vs Gaurav Agrawal and 3 Others

Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Suraj Nath and 8 Others Vs the Board of Revenue at Allahabad and Another

Munnilal Vs Roop Narain (Since Deceased) and 3 Others