Dismissed

Aslam v. Additional Commissioner (Admin)-Ii and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2023WRIC/7597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging revenue orders due to the petitioner's deliberate concealment of concurrent civil litigation. The interim status quo order was vacated, and the trial court was directed to conclude the Section 144 suit proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed due to concealment; interim order vacated; court directed to conclude Section 144 proceedings within six months.

Aslam Vs Additional Commissioner (Admin)-Ii… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107248

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7597 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Aslam Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Admin)-Ii And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kripa Shanker,Rama Shanker,Varad Nath

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent.

¶7

This Court passed following order on 21.3.2023 :

¶8

"Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed in this case.

¶9

By order dated 15.9.2022, the petitioner was granted time to file rejoinder affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has not been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after order dated 15.9.2022, a fresh supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting respondent. Considering the nature of interim order, list this case on 21.4.2023. The petitioner shall positively file rejoinder affidavit against the counter affidavit as well as against the supplementary counter affidavit. No further time shall be granted for the said purpose and the matter shall be finally heard irrespective of filing of rejoinder affidavit."

¶10

No rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

¶11

This petition has been filed challenging orders dated 28.2.2020 and 30.7.2020. By the first order, injunction application filed by the petitioner in his suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code') was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish, prima facie, his rights and possession over the property in dispute and the photostat copy of some agreement produced by him was not readable in evidence. Findings on prima facie case was

¶12

also recorded against the petitioner. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred under Section 207 of the Code before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 30.7.2020.

¶13

When this petition was filed, on 15.3.2021, this Court passed an order that pendency of the writ petition would not mean that there is any interim protection in favour of the petitioner. However, later on this Court by order dated 8.7.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo till the next date of listing.

¶14

Order sheet of the present case reveals that the interim order of status quo was not extended on any date thereafter.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the suit is still pending, the order of status quo passed by this Court may be directed to be maintained, till the suit is finally decided.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent has vehemently opposed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner has deliberately concealed two main proceedings. One in the nature of civil suit being Original Suit No.1270 of 2019 and the other being Revision No.1651 of 2020. He argues that in the civil suit, no interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. In so far as the revision is concerned, challenging the order dated 30.7.2020, impugned in the present petition, the aforesaid revision was filed, which was dismissed on 22.1.2021.

¶17

These documents have been annexed with the counter affidavit, which was filed in the year 2021, and clearly establish the record of the proceedings.

¶18

Grant of injunction is discretionary relief. Similarly, writ jurisdiction is based on fairness and equity. In the present case, the petitioner is guilty of concealment of proceedings of the aforesaid civil suit as well as the revision. Once the petitioner chose three forums simultaneously or one after another, that is to say that he proceeded with his case under Section 144 of the Code, injunction application was rejected on merits and on the other hand, terming the land to be abaadi, he moved the machinery of Civil Court but could not succeed in his injunction matter and further challenging the Commissioner's order, the petitioner filed a revision before

¶19

the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed. The fact of aforesaid proceedings is a relevant factor while deciding the present writ petition.

¶20

In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of the aforesaid facts.

¶21

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in so far as interference in orders impugned in concerned. Interim order dated 8.7.2021, though not extended further, is hereby vacated.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents has annexed the order sheet of proceedings under Section 144 of the Code, from perusal whereof, it appears that issues have already been framed in the suit.

¶23

In view of above, the Court concerned is directed to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of the Code, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Manish Himwan

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aslam v. Additional Commissioner (Admin)-Ii and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam v. Additional Commissioner (Admin)-Ii and 2 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

Radha Krishna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bechan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratyush Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Rita Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surya Nath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others