Allowed

Sughar Singh v. State of Up and 6 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024WRIB/2809/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a Board of Revenue order rejecting revision against an Addl. Commissioner's order allowing the State's substitution application in a 24-year-old revision filed against a dead party without delay condonation or hearing the petitioner. The High Court set aside both orders and remitted the matter to the Addl. Commissioner for fresh orders on the substitution application aft

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 21.2.2024 and 27.4.2022 set aside; matter remitted to Addl. Commissioner for fresh orders on substitution application within one month.

Sughar Singh vs State of Up and 6 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121665

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2809 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sughar Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Singh,Navin Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, the Gaon Sabha concerned.

¶8

Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is being dispensed with.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders dated 21.2.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. REV/1092/2022, Computerized Case No. AL20220149001092 (Sughar Singh versus State of U.P. and others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the revision has been rejected and the order dated 27.4.2022 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Case No. 1550 of 2014-15 (State of U.P. and others versus Sughar Singh and others) has been upheld.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which came to be decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.1990. Subsequent to the decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the private defendant, namely, Collector son of Gopi expired in the year 2001. The decree passed in a suit filed under Section 229-B was not put to challenge by the private defendant. After 24 years of passing of the decree in the suit filed under Section 229-B, the State filed a revision in the year 2014, which was registered as Case No. 1550 of 2014-15 (State of U.P. and others versus Sughar Singh and others). The revision was filed without seeking

¶11

condonation of delay as also by impleading the said Collector son of Gopi, who had already expired in the year 2001. The petitioner put in appearance in the said proceedings and filed his objection pointing out that one of the parties to the revision, namely, Collector, son of Gopi had expired way back in the year 2001 and that delay in filing the revision had not been explained. A substitution application is stated to have been filed on behalf of the State in the said revision without seeking condonation of delay on which application, the Addl. Commissioner, vide order dated 27.4.2022 by a cryptic order, without condoning the delay, allowed the said application and directed necessary amendments be made in the array of parties.

¶12

The order dated 27.4.2022 was put to challenge in revision before the Board of Revenue, which revision has been rejected by the order dated 21.2.2024.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the revision after a lapse of 24 years that too against a dead person, was clearly not maintainable. He has also argued that on the pointing out of the petitioner in his objection, a substitution application came to be filed on behalf of the revisionist-State, which was allowed by a cryptic order. He submits that at least the petitioner was required to be heard on the objection before allowing the substitution application. The order of the Addl. Commissioner, was rightly challenged in the revision before the Board of Revenue, but the Board of Revenue by committing the same mistake, as committed by the Addl. Commissioner has rejected the revision by the impugned order dated 21.2.2024.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶15

A perusal of the order of the Addl. Commissioner passed on the application filed by the State of U.P. in the revision preferred against the order dated 16.9.1990 reveals that the same has been allowed even without considering the objections of the petitioner. A perusal of the order of the Board of Revenue reveals that the Board of Revenue has also taken note of the fact that the application filed by the State in the aforesaid revision was not endorsed by the petitioner or by his counsel and it was certainly a violation of the principles of natural justice. The order further records that subsequent to the death of the Collector son of Gopi on 10.8.2001, on getting knowledge of the factum of death, the substitution application had been filed, which was allowed by the Addl. Commissioner and no error can be said to have been

¶16

committed while allowing the substitution application.

¶17

In the opinion of the Court, the Board of Revenue ought to have considered the objection of the petitioner to the substitution and also to maintainability of the revision itself before allowing the substitution application.

¶18

In the opinion of the Court, the matter can be remitted back to the Addl. Commissioner, to pass fresh order on the substitution application filed by the State-revisionists after taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, the order dated 21.2.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting the revision as well as the order dated 27.4.2022 allowing the substitution application are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra seized with the Case No. 1550 of 2014-15 (State of U.P. and others versus Sughar Singh and others) to pass fresh orders on the substitution application filed by the State of U.P. through the Collector, Mainpuri as well as the Gram Sabha/Land Management Committee after considering the objections of the petitioner to the said application, expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶20

With the aforesaid objection, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Ravi Prakash

¶22

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶23

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

Sughar Singh v. State of Up and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sughar Singh v. State of Up and 6 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

Jagnarayan vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kaval Kishor vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Shyam Bala vs State of Up and 6 Others

Rajkumar Since Deceased and 9 Others vs Lala Ved Prakash and Another

Balkesh Yadav vs State of Up and 6 Others

Hriday Narayan Pandey vs State of Up and 4 Others