Dismissed

Aqbal Ahmad and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024WRIC/1965/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing substitution of heirs in proceedings for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Court held that Section 231 of the Code makes CPC provisions applicable and substitution is permissible for procedural continuity without determining rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aqbal Ahmad and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21960

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1965 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Aqbal Ahmad And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rayees Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dileep Kumar Pathak,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rayees Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, Shri Dileep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 16.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 7.11.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners and upholding the order passed by the S.D.O., Tulsipur dated 17.3.2020 whereby the application moved by the private respondent no.4 for substituting the heirs of the deceased parties has been allowed.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present petitioners who were impleaded as respondents no.8 to 10 in the application preferred by the private respondent no.4 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation. It is urged that the private respondents in the said application were not served and moreover, on the date of institution of the said application i.e., 5.12.2012, Anwarul Haq and Irshad Hussain who have been impleaded as respondents no.7 and 11 respectively in the application under Section 24 of

¶10

the Code of 2006.

¶11

It is further submitted that at a later stage, in order to cure the aforesaid defects, the private respondent no.4 herein moved the application titled as application under Order VI Rule 17 and the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 10.10.2018. It is urged that the specific objections were raised by the petitioners herein to the effect that in proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of 2006, the provisions of CPC are not applicable. Thus, the application preferred by the private respondent no.4 herein was not maintainable. Apart from the fact that even if at all, the application for substitution could be entertained, it would be defected as it did not have accompanied the application seeking condonation of delay.

¶12

Upon considering the objections raised, the S.D.O., Tulsipur by means of order dated 17.3.2020 allowing the application specifically holding that the issue of substitution is only limited to the extent bringing the heirs of the deceased parties on record so that the proceedings can be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶13

Since no right is being determined at this stage, hence there can be no grievance, insofar as the objector (petitioners herein) are concerned. With the same reason, the revisional court also dismissed the revision of the petitioners.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record in proceedings under the Code of 2006, even though if proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of 2006 are of summary nature but the fact remains upon death of a party, an application for substitution can always be entertained barring the principles as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the order 22 was not applicable, hence no such application could have been entertained does not

¶15

seem to reason inasmuch as by virtue of Section 231 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been made applicable in proceedings under the Code of 2006.

¶16

Since no rights of either of the parties have been determined and merely an application for substitution has been allowed, the S.D.O., Tulsipur as well as revisional court have not committed any error which may persuade the Court to entertain the aforesaid petition. This Court is of the clear opinion that the petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Shravan

¶18

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

Aqbal Ahmad and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aqbal Ahmad and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hakeekullah Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C. New, Distt. Gonda and Another

Beche Lal Vs Civil Judge (J.D) North Safipur Unnao and 4 Others

Smt. Meera Vs Court of Small Causes Judge Faizabad and 2 Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional Manager Lucknow vs Smt. Usha Mishra and Ors.

Shiv Shankar and Others vs Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

Ram Kishore vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Collector / District Magistrate, Bahraich and 4 Others