Allowed

Mohd Naushey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023WRIC/4896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Board of Revenue's order rejecting a prayer to transfer six land revenue appeals. The court set aside the impugned order due to contradictory administrative directions and directed consolidation of all seven appeals before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Prayagraj for expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 17.1.2023 was set aside. Directive to transfer six appeals to Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Prayagraj for consolidated disposal within three months.

Mohd Naushey Vs State of U.P. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198631

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4896 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd Naushey Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dwivedi,Kamla Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Smt. Kamla Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pratik Samadhia holding brief of Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 8 and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that in respect to the holdings of deceased Smt. Khudaija Bibi proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 were initiated and following six cases were registered before Tehsildar, Prayagraj:-

¶8

(i) Case No. 8/22/666/179/105 of 2002, Smt. Khudaija Bibi Vs. Fatima Bibi

¶9

(ii) Case No. 105 of 2001, Tahira Bibi, Nause Nawab Ali Vs. Fatima Bibi

¶10

(iii) Case No. 1/1/22/58/393 of 2001, Tahira Bibi Nause Nawab Ali Vs. Khudaija Bibi

¶11

(iv) Case No. 196 of 2002, Nawab Ali Vs. Tahira Bibi

¶12

(v) Case No. 51/1646/34/408/399/41/13/1/10 of 2004, Akhtar Hussain Vs. Smt. Khudaija Bibi

¶13

(vi) Case No. 27/55/356/346 of 2006 Akhtar Hussain Vs. Fatima Bibi

¶14

The aforementioned cases were consolidated by Chief Revenue Officer Prayagraj and direction was issued to Tehsildar, Sadar, Prayagraj to decide all the cases together as property in dispute are same. Tehsildar, Sadar, Prayagraj decided all the six cases vide order dated 29.12.2020. Against the order of Tehsildar dated 29.12.2020, petitioner filed seven appeals before respondent no.2/ Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Prayagraj under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 1901 which were registered as follows:-

¶15

(i) T202102030305407

¶16

(ii) T202202030309339

¶17

(iii) T202202030309346

¶18

(iv) T202202030309338

¶19

(v) T202202030309345

¶20

(vi) T202202030309344

¶21

(vii) T202202030309340

¶22

During pendency of the aforementioned seven appeals before respondent no.2/ Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Prayagraj a proceeding under Section 212 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated at the instance of Nawab Ali who was one of appellant alongwith petitioner before Appellate Court and Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow vide order dated 12.10.2021 transferred the one of the appeal No. T202102030305407 from the Court of respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Prayagraj to the Court of respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Prayagraj. Petitioner applied for transfer of remaining six appeals also to the Court of respondent no.3 but Board of Revenue rejected the prayer for transfer of remaining six appeals vide order dated 17.1.2023 hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the order dated 17.1.2023 passed by Board of Revenue as well as for mandamus to consolidate all the appeals at one place for decision in accordance with law.

¶23

3.This Court has entertained the matter at admission stage and passed the following interim order dated 5.7.2023:-

¶24

"1. Heard Smt. Kamla Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶25

2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that one appeal filed agaisnt the order of Tehsildar has been transferred from Soraon to Prayagraj, but application for transfer of other appeals on the same ground has been rejected by the Board of Revenue.

¶26

3. Matter requires consideration.

¶27

4. Issue notice to respondent Nos.4 to 8 returnable at an early date.

¶28

5. Steps be taken within ten days.

¶29

6. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 shall file counter affidavit within four weeks.

¶30

7. Petitioner will file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. 8. List on 24th August, 2023.

¶31

9.Until further orders of this Court, the proceeding of pending Appeals i.e. (1) Appeal No.T20210203030407 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Akhtar Husain), pending in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,

¶32

Prayagraj (2) Appeal No.2022030309338 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Mahtab Farooq and others) (3) Appeal No.2022030309339 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Akhtar Hussain) (4) Appeal No.2022030309340 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Akhtar Hussain)(5) Appeal No.2022030309344 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Akhtar Hussain) (6) Appeal No.2022030309345 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Akhtar Hussain) (7) Appeal No.2022030309346 (Mohd. Naushey Vs. Akhtar Hussain) serial No.2 to 7 are pending in the Court of SubDivisional Officer, Tehsil-Soraon shall remain stayed."

¶33

In pursuance of the order dated 5.7.2023 as quoted above, contesting respondents have put in appearance through Counsel.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that one appeal out of seven have been transferred from Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj to Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj and remaining appeals are pending at Tehsil Soraon District Prayagraj. She submitted that all the appeals be transferred to one place. She submitted that hearing at two places in respect to the same controversy will cause inconvenience to both parties as well as the same may result into contradictory judgment in respect to the same controversy.

¶35

Mr. Pratik Samadhia, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi appearing for contesting respondents submitted that cause for transferring the one appeal from Soraon to Sadar is no more inexistence, as such, let all the appeal be heard together at TehsilSoraon.

¶36

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶37

In order to appreciate the controversy, the perusal of the orders dated 12.10.2021 and 17.1.2023 passed by Board of Revenue will be relevant which are as under:-

¶38

" नययययलयशशअमरनयथउपयधययय, मयननशयसदसय, रयजसवपररषद, उ०प०,इलयहयबयद

¶39

मणडलल- पययगरयज,जनपदल-पययगरयज

¶40

वयदससखययल-TA/1696/2021/पययगरयज

¶41

कमपययटरशककतवयदससखययल-AL20210203001696

¶42

नवयबअलशबनयमउपजजलयजधकयरशससरयसवपययगरयजशशअननलचततवरदशवअनय

¶43

असतगरतधयरयल- 212, उतरपददशरयजसवससनहतय-2006

¶44

आददशनतजथल-12/10/2021

¶45

आददश

¶46

पतयवलशपसत हहई।अनतरणपयथरनयपतनदनयसक 02.09.2021 परपयथरपककद नवदयनअजधवकयकदतकरकससतनयगयय। पयथरकदनवदयनअजधवकयकयकथनएवसतकरहहनकउपरसककमपययटरशककतवयद ससखयय- टश०-202102030305407 मसहममदननसदआनदबनयमअखतरहहसहन आनद, नययययलयउपजजलयजधकयरश, ससरयव, जजलयपययगरयजकद नययययलयमद लममबतहह।नवचयरयधशनवयदममकईबयरसतनवयईहहईनकनततसतनवयईकदउपरयनत भश नययययलयदयरयकसईआददशपयररतनहशनकययगयय।अतलपशनगतवयदकसनकसश अनयनययययलयममअनतररतनकएजयनदकयअनतरसधनकययगययहह।

¶47

पतयवलशपरउपलबधअनतरणपयथरनयपतवशपथपतउपलबधअनभलदखखकय भलश-भयसनतअवलसकननकययगयय।उ०प०रयजसवनययययलयननयमससगहममहहए नवशनससशसधनकदफलसवरपअमसततवममआयदननयम-495(6) कदअधशनपदत शनकयखकयपयरगकरअनतरणपयथरनयपतपरअधशनसथनययययलयसदअनभलदख अथवयआखययककमयसगनकएनबनयभशननसतयररतनकययजयसकतयहह।चयचनक पतयवलशकद अवलसकनसदयहपररलनकतहसतयहहनकवयदकसनकसशअनय नययययलयममअनतररतनकएजयनदकयजसआधयरजलययगययहह, वहससतसषजनकएवस नयययसनचतहह, अतलइससतरपरवयदअनतररतनकएजयनदसदअनयपककयरखकय नहतपभयनवतनहशहसतयहह।अतलवयदकसनकसशउपलबधनययययजधकयरशकद नययययलयममअनतररतनकययजयनयउनचतहह।

¶48

अतलअनतरणपयथरनयपतनदनयसक 02.09.2021 नयययनहतममसवशकयरकरतद हहएउपरसक, कमपययटरशककतवयदससखयय- टश०-202102030305407, मसहममद ननसदआनदबनयमअखतरहहसहनआनद, नययययलयउपजजलयजधकयरश, ससरयसव, जजलय पययगरयजकदनययययलयसदनययययलयउपजजलयजधकयरश, सदर, जजलयपययगरयजकद नययययलयममअनतररतनकययजयतयहह।इसनययययलयदयरययनदपयवरममकसईसथगन आददशपयररतनकययगययहहतसउसदननरसतनकययजयतयहह।

¶49

इसआददशककपनतअधशनसथनययययलयकसआवशयककययरवयहशहदतत पदनषतनकययजयए।आवशयककययरवयहशकदपशचयतइसनययययलयककपतयवलश दयजखलदफतरककजययद।

(अमरनयथउपयधययय)

आई.ए.एस.

सदसय (नययनयक)

12.10.2021"

नययययलयशशससजशवनमतल, मयननशयअधयक, रयजसवपररषद, उ०प०,लखनऊ वयदससखययल-TA/77/2023/पययगरयज

¶55

कसपययटरशककतवयदससखययल-R202302030077

¶56

मस०ननशदबनयमउपजजलयजधकयरशतह०ससरयसवजजलयपययगरयज (डयस०कसचन)

¶57

असतगरतधयरयल- 212,अजधननयमल- उतरपददशरयजसवससनहतय-2006

¶58

आददशनतजथल- 17/01/2023

17.01.2023

शशहययनहसन

शशकद०एन०पयठक,

सथययशअजधवकय

आददश

पसत सथयनयनतरणपयथरनयपतधयरय-212 उ०प०रयजसवससनहतय, 2006 कद अनतगरत उप जजलयजधकयरश, ससरयसव जनपद पययगरयज कद नययययलय सद कमपययटरशककतवयदससखयय-टश 202202030309346, मस०ननसदबनयमअखतर हहसहनकसनकसशअनयसकमनययययलयममसथयनयनतररतनकयदजयनदहदततपररषद नययययलयममनदनयसक 09.01.2023 कसयसजजतनकययगययहह।

¶65

पतयवलशपसत हहई।पतकयरकरययशगयश।वयदशकदनवदयनअजधवकयशशहययन हसनएवसपनतवयदशकदनवदयनसथययशअजधवकयशशकद०एन०पयठकउपमसथतहहए, उनकससतनयगयय।

¶66

वयदशकदनवदयनअजधवकयनदसथयनयनतरणपयथरनयपतममउनलजखततथयखकस दसहरयतदहहएमतखयरपसदकथननकययहहनकवयदशएकवकदअसवसथवयनकहह जजसकदकयरणपयथरअपनदवयदककसमतनचतरपसदपहरवशनहहशकरपयरहयहह। अतलवयदनकसशअनयसकमनययययलयममसथयनयनतररतनकययजयय।

¶67

सथयनयनतरणपयथरनयपत/ पतयवलशकदअवलसकनसपरयनतसपषहहनकपशनगत वयदकदसथयनयनतरणहदततनदयदगयदतकरठससतथयखपरआधयररतनहशहहतथयवयद कदसथयनयनतरणहदततपययरपनहशहह।अतलसथयनयनतरणपयथरनयपतननरसतनकयय जयतयहह।

¶68

बयदआवशयकपतयवलशदयजखलदफतरहस।

(ससजशवनमतल)

अधयक

17.01.2023"

In view of the aforementioned two contradictory orders passed by Board of Revenue, one appeal will be heard before respondent no.3 and remaining six appeals will be heard before respondent no.2 which will not be proper in any manner nor in the interest of justice.

¶73

It is also material that private respondents have not challenged the order dated 12.10.2021 before any Court, as such, order dated 12.10.2021 is to be maintained.

¶74

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned

¶75

order dated 17.1.2023 passed by Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. Writ petition stands allowed and it is directed that respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Prayagraj shall transmit the record of appeal Nos. T202202030309339, T202202030309346, T202202030309338, T202202030309345, T202202030309344, T202202030309340 to the Court of respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Prayagraj for disposal of all the seven appeals together. Respondent no.3 is directed to decide all the seven aforementioned appeals together expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶76

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Vandana Y.

¶77

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Naushey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Naushey v. State of U.P.

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

Vasir @ Vajir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Murti Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Jang Bahadur Patel Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Madarasa Zamiatul Fallah Bilariaganj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Omkar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S Dkd Ikjot United Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others