Dismissed

Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2023WRIC/39402/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the recall of an order confirming kurra in a partition suit under the U.P. Revenue Code. The High Court found no case for interference but directed the respondent to decide the partition suit within six months of serving the order, ensuring proper opportunity of hearing to parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the partition suit proceedings within six months, affording proper opportunity to parties.

Brijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227369

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39402 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Brijendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Hari Narayan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K. Saxena, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 26.6.2023, passed by respondent no.2/Addl. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Appeal No.2095/2021 (Brajendra Singh vs. Jitendra Singh and Others) and order dated 23.11.2021, passed by respondent no.3/S.D.M., Tehsil Sikandara, Kanpur Dehat in the proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner states that in the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an order confirming the kurra, has been passed in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the contesting respondents have filed an application for restoration/recall which has been allowed in arbitrary manner and the earlier order passed in the partition suit was set aside on the ground that the order was passed in ex parte manner. It is further submitted that the orders were passed, following due procedure of law but in order to linger the proceeding, restoration application has been filed and the earlier orders have been set aside.

¶9

On the other hand, Sri G.K. Saxena, learned Addl. C.S.C. and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that while allowing the restoration application, the trial court has recorded finding that proper opportunity was not afforded to the parties, as such, the order was recalled and the matter has been restored, as such, the petitioner should appear in the pending proceeding which shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶10

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

¶11

counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶12

There is no dispute about the fact that the partition suit filed by the parties is pending before the trial court and the earlier orders passed in the partition suit have been set aside and partiton suit has been restored for fresh decision.

¶13

In view of the finding of fact recorded by the court concerned, no case for interference is made out in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.3 to decide the proceedings of the partition suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.12.2023 C.Prakash

¶16

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijendra Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baij Nath and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Himanshu Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Murtaza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Barkhu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Chand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munna Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others