Ravindra Kumar Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector District Balrampur and 8 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025WRIB/56/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order in a writ petition challenging an order of the Board of Revenue regarding a suit for division of land under the U.P. Revenue Code. The court issued notice, maintained status quo, and listed the matter for further proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ravindra Kumar Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 56 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector District Balrampur And 8 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Pandey,Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Dhar Dwivedi,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.9. Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of private respondent nos.5 to 7, on caveat.

¶8

The dispute in between parties emerges from a suit for division of land holding filed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006( hereinafter referred as "Code of 2006"). The case of the petitioners is that the original recorded tenure holder namely Ambika Prasad had initially sold 1/4th of his property in favour of private respondent nos.5 to 8. Later by means of the sale deed dated 6.12.1991, 3/4th of the said share of Ambika Prasad was sold to the petitioners. In this fashion, the petitioners who were the plaintiffs, instituted a suit for demarcation and division of the land holding. In so far as the respective share of the parties is concerned, there was no dispute, however the dispute emerges once the scheme of partition was submitted by the Lekhpal. In the first instance, the Lekhpal granted the entire 1/4th share to the private respondent adjacent to the main road. This was objected by the petitioners whereafter upon hearing the parties, the said report did not find favour with the S.D.O. concerned and a fresh scheme for partition was prepared, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.10.

¶9

In the light of this report, both the petitioners and the private respondents were accommodated on the road as per their own share. At this stage,

¶10

the private respondents being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the first appellate court who means of the order dated 16.3.2023, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for decision, afresh and requiring the Lekhpal to submit its report on the basis of the possession as reflected from the sale deed. This order of first appellate court was challenged by the petitioners in a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which came to be dismissed as not maintainable on 24.7.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is incorrectly held by the second appellate court that the second appeal was not maintainable apart from the fact that once the scheme of partition was placed on record and it reflected that both the contesting parties were accommodated on the road, there was no occasion for the first appellate court to have remanded the matter simplicitor on the ground that in the sale deed of the private respondents, it was stated that the southern portion was being sold without there being any boundaries.

¶12

The submission is that without there being any proper boundaries, the land could not have been sold in a specific way and in any case, once the suit for partition has been filed and the shares were undisputed, both the parties have to be accommodated in a fair manner and without establishing any prejudice, the first appellate court has erred in remanding the matter.

¶13

Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that in the sale deed which was executed in favour of the private respondents, it was prior in time in context of the sale deed of the petitioners wherein it was mentioned by the vendor that the southern portion was sold and in this way once the private respondent was in possession of the southern portion, the manner in which scheme of partition had been framed, it was in ignorance of the fact that factual possession and appellate court has rightly remanded the matter.

¶14

The matter requires consideration.

¶15

Since the private respondents nos.4 to 7 have already put in appearance through their counsel, hence fresh notice is not required.

¶16

Let notice be issued to respondent no.8. Steps be taken within a week. It shall be open for the private respondents to file their counter affidavits.

¶17

List this case in the first week of March, 2025.

¶18

As an interim measure, the parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today.

¶19

Whenever the case is listed next, the name of Shri Pankaj Gupta, shall be correctly printed in the cause list as counsel for the respondent/ Gaon Sabha.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Shukla

¶21

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

Ravindra Kumar Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector District Balrampur and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ravindra Kumar Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector District Balrampur and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Pfizer Ltd. vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow and Anr.

Vijay Laxmi vs Smt. Sarita Devi and Others

Asharam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

M/S M.J. Surgicals through Proprietor Manisha Jain vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Branch Manager

Rambachan and 3 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Senior Manager(F) and Auth. Signatory Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lko.