Disposed

Smt. Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023WRIC/9220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Commissioner's order remanding a Section 80 non-agricultural land declaration application. The Court refused interference in the mere remand order but disposed of the writ to direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter within 4 months after hearing both the petitioners and the vendor.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the Section 80 application within 4 months after hearing the petitioners and respondent no. 5.

Smt. Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9220 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Shanti Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kanhaiya Soni Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri KK Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, for the respondent counsel.

¶6

The petitioners are purchasers of some land from respondent no. 5 by means of a registered sale deed. An application under Section 80 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 was filed by the petitioners with the prayer that their holdings be declared as non-agricultural in nature.

¶7

The said application was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 16.7.2022.

¶8

The respondent no. 5 i.e. the vendor from whom the petitioners have purchased the property, filed a revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 16.7.2022 contending that there are various co-sharers in the property covered by gata no. 276 and proceedings of division of respective shares amongst the co-sharers are pending before the competent court under Section 116 of the U.P. revenue Code 2006. It was also mentioned in the revision that both the proceedings were pending in the same Court, however the order dated 16.7.2022 was passed by the same Court keeping pending other proceedings in between the parties and that the revisionist respondent no. 5 was not made a party to the proceedings under Section 80 of the Code.

¶9

The Commissioner Moradabad, Division- Moradabad has, by the order impugned dated 16.09.2022, set aside the order dated 16.07.2022 and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer with a direction that the case be decided again after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties and permitting them to lead evidence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of

¶11

remand is unsustainable as the revisionist had himself sold the property to the petitioners.

¶12

However, I find that necessity for impleadment of the revisionist was felt by the revisional Court on the ground that he is a co-sharer in gata no. 276 as also stands reflected from the memo of revision that certain land still remains with the revisionist even after sale.

¶13

In view of the above, since the order impugned is merely an order of remand, interference in the same is refused.

¶14

However, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the nature of the proceedings, this petition is being disposed of with the direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Bilari, District- Moradabad, i.e., respondent no.3 to decide the application under Section 80 of the Court after hearing the petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 positively, within a period of 4 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Vipul

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 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

M/S Daya Sugar Gagalheri and Another Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and 3 Others

Gazi Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Genda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhaiya Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Jitendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Tej Pratap Singh and 2 Others Vs Sub Divisional Officer Phoolpur Prayagraj and 9 Others