Disposed

Sajid Ali @ Munna and Others v. U.P. Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024WRIB/245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding property title. Court directed private respondents to file counter-affidavit, listed matter for April 22, 2024, and granted interim status-quo to prevent alienation.

What did the court decide?

Private respondents directed to file counter-affidavit; matter listed for 22.04.2024; status-quo maintained.

Sajid Ali @ Munna and Others vs U.P. Board of Revenue… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 245 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Sajid Ali @ Munna And Others Respondent :- U.P. Board Of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suyash Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Suyash Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no. 3 on caveat.

¶6

The petitioners assail the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 as well as the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Faizabad, as a consequence, the proceedings which were initiated at the behest of the private respondents no. 3 under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were allowed.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property in question initially belonged to Sri Juggal, Mohammad Ali and Rajjab Ali. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Mohd. Ali and Rajjab Ali.

¶8

Sri Juggal, upon his death was survived by his three sons, Khadim Hussain, Gulab Hussain and Gulab Nabi, however, in so far as the share of Juggal is concerned that was represented by his three sons who sold the same in favour of Abdul Hafeej on 25.11.1971 and in turn, Abdul Hafeez also sold his share by executing two separate sale deeds dated 06.12.1979 and 09.11.1982, as a result, no right was left in the hands of the Abdul Hafeez.

¶9

It is further stated that the private respondent no. 3 initiated proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with the averments that the name of Abdul Hafeez be incorporated in respect of the disputed property who had expired, thereafter the name of his widow be incorporated as the widow of Abdul Hafeez had sold the share in favour of the private respondent no. 4.

¶10

In the aforesaid factual matrix, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the entire material was

¶11

brought on record indicating the manner in which Abdul Hafeez acquired interest and had sold the same and in one of the sale deeds, he had also indicated that after executing the present sale deed no share was left, there was no occasion for incorporating either the name of Abdul Hafeez or his widow and consequently the respondent no. 3 also would not acquire any right. Nevertheless, the issues related to title which could not have been decided in the summary proceedings especially when the sale deed 06.12.1979 and 09.11.1982 were never challenged till date.

¶12

The matter requires consideration.

¶13

Let the counter affidavit be filed by the private respondents within two weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who if may so chose, may file his response within a period of ten days thereafter.

¶14

List this matter in the week commencing 22nd April, 2024.

¶15

As an interim measure, the parties shall maintain status-quo, as it exists today, none of the parties shall create any third party rights or alienate the same till the next date of listing.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Asheesh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sajid Ali @ Munna and Others v. U.P. Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Ali @ Munna and Others v. U.P. Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indresh Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jyoti Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akshay Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Anjesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Nanga @ Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Mohak Shastri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.