Writ petition challenging dismissal of a review petition against revenue orders. Court held it inappropriate to interfere as a title suit is pending and revenue proceedings are summary in nature. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed with no order passed below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58243
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 839 of 2024
Petitioner :- Tripunayak Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Chandra,Pramod Kumar Pandey,Vachaspati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.
Under challenge is the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent no.4 was allowed. Against the said order the present petitioner preferred a review/recall which has been dismissed by means of the order dated 15.02.2024 and these two orders have been assailed in the instant petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Board of Revenue did not take note of the submissions made by the petitioner and the matter was heard in their absence.
It is further submitted that the private respondent no.4 is claiming right in respect of the property in question on the basis of the perpetual lease said to have been executed in his favour in the year, 1948. This is opposed by the petitioner who claims rights in the property-in-question indicating that the said property was recorded in the name of his predecessor namely Lakhu who executed a registered will dated 18.11.1978 in favour of Savitri, daughter-in-law of Lakhu and grandson namely Vinayak. The petitioner is the other son of Lakhu who has been excluded in the said Will dated 18.11.1978.
It is further submitted that the aforesaid aspect has not been appropriately considered by the two courts as the issue of title between the contesting parties based on the lease in favour of the private respondent no.4 and the impact of the registered Will dated 18.11.1978 is to be considered. It is, thus, urged that the orders are bad and deserves to be set aside.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the material on record, it appears that the revision and the review emanate from the order passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Salempur dated 15.06.2016 whereby the impleadment application was allowed setting aside the order of recall dated 07.01.2004. This order was further assailed which came to be considered by the court of Commissioner and vide order dated 26.10.2018 it was noticed that since a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act had already been instituted between the parties, it will be appropriate for the parties to have got their rights adjudicated in the said suit.
For the aforesaid reasons, the revision preferred by Vinayak who is beneficiary under the Will of Lakhu was allowed. It is, at this stage, that the revision was preferred by the private respondent which was allowed noticing that the matter is yet to be considered on merits. Consequently, the revisional court did not deem it appropriate to intervene. The review/recall also for the same reason has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain under what circumstances the suit under Section 229 B was pending before the Court nor it could be explained as to how the petitioner is being aggrieved since the issue which is in context is on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by Lakhu dated 18.11.1978 as opposed to the aforesaid set up of respondent no.4 on the basis of perpetual lease said to have been executed in 1948. Since proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1914 are purely summary in nature and they do not decide the right, title and interest coupled with the fact that suit under Section 229B is pending. Hence for the aforesaid reason, this Court does not deem appropriate to interfere leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his grievance before the appropriate forum where the matter is pending including any regular suit and needless to say any order passed by the Court on the regular side would naturally prevail over any order passed in summary proceedings.
For the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition, it is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.8.2024 Harshita
Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in summary revenue proceedings where a suit regarding title is pending under the relevant act.
Whether the petitioner, who was not heard, can succeed given the pendency of a title suit on merits between the parties.
Tripunayak
Board Of Revenue
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
