Dismissed

Ram Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024/4090/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the impleadment of lessees in a civil property suit. The Court held that the lower court's order allowing impleadment had sufficient reasoning and contained no illegality, thus refusing interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order dated 27.03.2023 and order dated 09.08.2024 remain unchanged.

Ram Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58826

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4090 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Verma

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Ram Singh,Rayees Ahmad Khan

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Vikas Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Ram Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party 2, Sri Rayees Ahmad, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3, Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the gaon sabha.

¶9

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 27.03.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambedkar Nagar in Regular Suit No.407 of 2022: Ram Kumar and others Vs. Akhand Pratap, whereby the application filed by the opposite party no.1 and another application filed by the opposite parties no.4 and 5 for their impleadment were allowed. The petitioners have also sought to challenge the validity of judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Revision No.11 of 2023, whereby the revision filed against the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2023 has been dismissed and the aforesaid order has been affirmed.

¶10

The learned Civil Judge has stated in the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 that the applicants seeking their impleadment had obtained a lease in respect of the property in dispute in the year 1973. The competent revenue authority had passed an

¶11

order for mutation of names of the lessees but the Consolidation Officer recorded the property in dispute in Abadi Record-6. The order of Consolidation Officer was set aside in appeal and the names of lessees were directed to be recorded as bhumidhars with non-transferable rights. The revision filed against the aforesaid orders was allowed and the land was again ordered to be recorded as abadi. The lessees have filed a writ petition in this High Court which is still pending. In these circumstances, the lessees are necessary parties to the proceedings.

¶12

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the petitioners states that Writ-B No.944 of 2004 which was filed by the lessees has been dismissed on 05.05.2010. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and an application for restoration of the writ petition is pending.

¶13

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambedkar Nagar has passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 on the basis of sufficient reasons and there appears to be no illegality in the order. The learned revisional court has also not committed any illegality in affirming the order and dismissing the revision.

¶14

The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 29.8.2024/Ram.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Jagdev Maurya Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Court No. 10 Distt. Raebareli and Another

Rajesh Pandey Vs Civil Judge (J.D)North Lko and Another

Rohit Shukla vs Court of Learned Addl. Principal Judge-Vi,Family Court,Lko. and Another

Saurabh Kumar Agarwal vs the Learned Court of Addl. Principal Judge 6, Family Court,Lko. and Another

Rajaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others