Disposed

Ram Narayan and 32 Others v. the State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2023WRIC/7068/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging a revisional order remanding an impleadment application. The court clarified a clerical error in the impugned order and directed fresh consideration of the impleadment while also expediting the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

The word '?' in the impugned order directed to be treated as 'impleadment application'; impleadment to be reconsidered within one month; suit to be concluded by 30.11.2023.

Ram Narayan and 32 Others Vs the State of U.P. and 8… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109547

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7068 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Narayan And 32 Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

One Sharda Devi at the strength of Will executed by Krishna Mohan applied for mutation and her name was recorded in the revenue records. The respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act-1950 (in short 'the Act-1950') which was decreed on 02.04.1993, however, the said decree was set aside on 31.08.2000 by the first appellate court by allowing first appeal. Against the order of the first appellate court, the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The second appeal was allowed on 31.07.2002 and the matter was remanded to the trial court i.e. the court of Sub Divisional Officer.

¶8

Challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal, two writ petitions were filed; one by respondent nos.3 to 5 and the other by Sharda Devi. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and during the pendency of the same, the petitioners, at the strength of a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2001 executed by Sharda Devi sought their impleadment in both the writ petitions. In the meantime, Sharda Devi died and some substitution application was also filed by her heirs/legal

¶9

representatives.

¶10

This Court by a composite order dated 22.11.2010 dismissed both the writ petitions and directed the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months. However, insofar as, the substitution application filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sharda Devi and also the impleadment applications filed by the petitioners are concerned, this Court permitted the heirs to move a fresh substitution application and also left open for the persons seeking impleadment in the writ petitions to move a fresh application before the court below.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that pursuant to the opportunity granted by this Court in its order dated 22.11.2010, the petitioners filed an impleadment application before the trial court which was allowed by order dated 03.01.2014. The said order was assailed in revision by respondent nos.3 to 5 before the Commissioner which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 setting aside the order dated 03.01.2014 and remanding the matter to the trial court to decide the suit within a period of two months.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that impleadment application was rightly allowed as it was at the strength of a registered sale deed and further this Court had permitted the petitioners to move impleadment application and, therefore, the revisional court's order is unsustainable.

¶13

Per contra , learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha as well as Shri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3/1, 3/2 and 4 have jointly contended that the writ petition filed against the remand order is

¶14

not maintainable and, even otherwise, the order dated 03.01.2014 which was set aside by the revisional court was wholly a nonspeaking order and, hence, direction to decide the matter again after considering the objections taken by respondent nos.3 to 5 and after providing opportunity of hearing is not required to be interfered with.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that question of impleadment at the strength of a registered sale deed during the pendency of litigation is a matter of substance and the original parties to the lis have every right to object to the said impleadment application. Even otherwise, this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petitions granted opportunity to the petitioners to move fresh impleadment application. Merely because of such opportunity, it cannot be said that the objectors would lose their rights to object the impleadment application.

¶16

In the present case, the order dated 03.01.2014 has been perused and the Court finds that absolutely no observation or finding or discussion of rival contentions was noticed in the said order. The impleadment application was allowed only on the ground that since sale deed and Will has not been cancelled by the civil court, it is just and proper to allow the impleadment. The revisional court has taken notice of the cryptic nature of the order allowing impleadment and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court towards operative portion of the impugned order whereby direction to decide the suit within a period of two months has been issued by the revisional court. Learned counsel submits that the order impugned challenged before the revisional court was the order whereby the impleadment application was allowed and,

¶18

therefore, in case, the remand is found to be justified, it is the impleadment which requires reconsideration and fresh disposal and not the entire suit.

¶19

To this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents agree that the word " ववद " appearing in third last line of the impugned order appears to have been wrongly mentioned by the revisional court.

¶20

Considering the nature of revision and the entire controversy, the order of remand is not being interfered with and it is the impleadment application filed by the petitioners which requires reconsideration and disposal after hearing objections that might have been filed or may be filed by the contesting respondents.

¶21

In view of the above, considering the cryptic nature of the order dated 03.01.2014, I find that direction for remand is not illegal.

¶22

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off with the observation that word " ववद" appearing in third last line of the order impugned dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Basti, Divsion-Basti shall be treated as " impleadment application " and, therefore, it is the impleadment application that shall be decided afresh considering the objections filed by the contesting respondents within a period of one month from today.

¶23

Since this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 22.11.2010 had issued direction for expeditious disposal of the suit itself within a period of six months, and more than 12 years have lapsed since then, it is directed that proceedings

¶24

of the suit itself shall be concluded on or before 30.11.2023.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Jyotsana

¶26

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

Ram Narayan and 32 Others v. the State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Narayan and 32 Others v. the State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Bind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Janak Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Umapati Vs State of U.P. and 34 Others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ghure Lal Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others