Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 798 (ALL)

Pati Ram v. State of U. P.

2011-03-29

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
Rajiv Sharma, J.;- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the orders dated 14.12.1981 and 22.6.1982. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that the opposite party No.4 allotted 140 sq. yards land of plot No.84 to opposite party No.5 on 14.8.1986 for construction of house. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the said allotment in favour of opposite party No.5 on the ground that he did not construct the house within the prescribed period. 4. The Additional Collector, Agra, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that opposite party No.5 did not construct the house over the land in dispute and therefore, his allotment was cancelled on 5.7.1980. Thereafter, the opposite party No.5 filed Revision No. 278 of 1979-80 in the Court of Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. He referred it to the opposite party No.2 on 9.12.1980 with the recommendation that the Revision be allowed and the order dated 5.7.1980 of the Additional Collector be set aside. The petitioner filed objections against the recommendations of the opposite party No.3 on 9.1.1980 through Sri J. K. Pathak, Advocate. Subsequently, the reference was decided against him without any notice on 14.12.1981. When the petitioner came to know the aforesaid order, he moved an application on 13.5.1982 for setting aside the order dated 14.12.1981 on the ground that neither he nor his counsel had received any notice. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 issued notice to the opposite party No.5 and also granted interim injunction restraining the opposite party No.5 from taking possession or demolishing the temple existing on the land in dispute. Thereafter, the application was heard on merits and dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.6.1982. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petitoin has been filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitoiner is not a necessary party, therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed. 6. Considered the submissions made by the parties' Counsel and perused the record including the impugned orders. In the order dated 14.12.1981, while allowing the Revision, the Board of Revenue held that Moola had filed an injunction suit in 1967 and there was prohibition to the applicant to construct the house, therefore, the house could not be built within the prescribed limit. In the order dated 14.12.1981, while allowing the Revision, the Board of Revenue held that Moola had filed an injunction suit in 1967 and there was prohibition to the applicant to construct the house, therefore, the house could not be built within the prescribed limit. Therefore, the recommendation is correct and it was not possible to build the house when injunction of Civil Court was existing in 1966 there was no condition for the allottee to be resident of the circle as per Rule 115-L then in force. The application dated 17.10.1979 was although time barred but suo motu action was possible, therefore, the recommendation is accepted. 7. Thereafter, on the application for setting aside the aforesaid order, the Revisional Authority held that the petitioner is not an interested party and the cancellation proceeding was not supported on his time barred application and was started on the reports of Tahsildar and Tahsil Officials and suo motu action was taken. Therefore, Pati Ram was not an intersted person and even if he was made a party to the proceedings, it cannot be said that he is a necessary party and his objections is unwarranted which is time barred by one day as it was not filed within 30 days. In Phool Chandra v. Board of Revenue [1977 RD Page 320] it has been held that the application for cancellation of lease is time barred. Suo motu action was taken and such person cannot maintain the revision in the Board of Revenue or in the Court of Additioanl Commissioner. The aforesaid ruling is squarely covered in the present case. Even if, the petitioner is not served with a notice, he being not a necessary party. He is not competent to file objections. Further, it has been observed that even if no notice was issued to him, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside on his application which appears to have been moved at the instance of Smt. Moola with whom Basant Lal is litigating in the Civil Court in whose favour the reference has been decided. Further, it has been observed that even if no notice was issued to him, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside on his application which appears to have been moved at the instance of Smt. Moola with whom Basant Lal is litigating in the Civil Court in whose favour the reference has been decided. Pati Ram has not filed affidavit about the knowledge of the decision of the reference and affidavit and rejoinder of Jag Ram, son-in-law of Smt. Moola not being a party being highly interested in prolonging this litigation for helping her mother-in-law Smt. Moola cannot be safely believed and day-to-day delay has not been explained, therefore, in view of above, the application is liable to be dismissed being not maintainabel by Pati Ram and being time barred. 8. In view of above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. No interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, it is dismissed.