Ramapati Vs State of Up and 7 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118466

Court No. - 50

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2662 of 2024

Petitioner :- Ramapati Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh,Vineet Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 5.

¶8

Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the notice upon private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 is being dispensed with.

¶9

The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 and relates to Plot No. 71 area 0.963 hectare, Plot No. 374 area 0.154 hectare, Plot No. 137M area 0.028 hectare and Plot No. 85 area 0.0200 hectare situate at village Faguia, Pargana Barwal, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli.

¶10

Proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 is stated to have been initiated by the father of the respondent Nos. 7 & 8, which was registered as Suit No. 36/65 of 2007. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 29.12.2007 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakaldiha, Chandauli determining the share of the parties to be 1/3^rd each and directed for formulation of the preliminary decree. The Lekhpal, pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in the aforesaid suit, prepared the Kurras and site map on 28.5.2008, which came to be confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakaldiha, Chandauli vide order dated 18.3.2010 and accordingly, a direction was issued for preparation of the final decree. The petitioner preferred a restoration application, which came to be rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 3.9.2014.

¶11

Aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have filed three separate appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 331 (3) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 which appeals were registered as

¶12

Appeal No. 1197 of 2014, Appeal No. 1654 of 2014 and Appeal No. 1161 of 2014, respectively. All the three appeals were separately decided by the Addl. Commissioner, (Administration), Varanasi Division, Varanasi vide order dated 30.4.2024.

¶13

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2007 rendered in Suit No. 36/65 of 2007 as also the order dated 30.4.2024 passed in Appeal No. 1197 of 2024 have been subjected to challenge by means of Second Appeal No. 2292 of 2024. Likewise, the order dated 18.3.2010 passed in Suit No. 119 of 2006-07 and the order dated 30.4.2024 passed in Appeal No. 1654 of 2024 was put to challenge by filing Second Appeal No. 2293 of 2024 before the Board of Revenue. Similarly, the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakaldiha, Chandauli and the order dated 30.4.2024 passed in Appeal No. 1161 of 2014 have also been subject to challenge in Second appeal No. 2294 of 2024. All the appeals are stated to be pending before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj. The present writ petition relates to the Second Appeal No. 2293 of 2024.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in pursuance of the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chandauli are about to be delivered possession of the plots in dispute on the strength of the Kurras so prepared contrary to the interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that stay order was operating in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. It is also contended that the second appeal of the petitioner was presented before the Board of Revenue on 3.6.2024 and various dates are being fixed, but the appeal is not being taken up and there is constant threat of dispossession of the petitioner from the plots in dispute. The second appeal was listed on 12.6.2024. However, the hearing could not be conducted despite the urgency pleaded by the petitioner and the next date fixed was 10.7.2024. On 10.7.2024, the hearing of the appeal could not be taken place and the matter was adjourned for 24.7.2024. On 24.7.2024, the lawyers of the Board of Revenue at Prayagraj had refrained from working on account of some protest and now, the appeal has been fixed for 7.8.2024 as the next date fixed. The threat of dispossession is looming large over the petitioner and in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj to consider and decide the Second Appeal No. 2293 of 2024 within a time frame fixed by this Court and meanwhile, the parties may

¶15

be directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the plots in dispute.

¶16

I have heard Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

¶17

Admittedly, the Second Appeal No. 2293 of 2024 is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue along with an application for interim relief.

¶18

Considering the fact that numerous dates have been fixed in the matter and the stay application as well as appeal itself has not been heard since its filing, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by requiring the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in seisin of Second Appeal No. 2293 of 2024 to consider and pass appropriate order on the admission of the appeal as well as decide the stay application accompanying the second appeal preferably on the next date fixed or within three weeks from the date fixed after hearing the parties concerned and thereafter proceed to decide the Second Appeal itself in accordance with law.

¶19

Meanwhile till the consideration of the stay application and admission of the appeal, it is provided that the parties to the proceedings shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the plots in dispute.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 Ravi Prakash

¶22

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramapati v. State of Up and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramapati v. State of Up and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases