Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 513 (UTT)

CHARU SINGH v. RANVIR SINGH

2012-09-03

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Yadav, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the judgment and order dated 8-6-2012, passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Circuit Court Nainital in Revision No. 12/2010-11 and the order dated 27.08.2010, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Haldwani and issue a direction to Assistant Collector 1st Class Haldwani to allow the amendment application dated 14.06.2010 filed by the petitioners in Suit No. 22/44 of 1991-92. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class Haldwani for declaration and partition of the land in suit. The defendants filed written statement in the suit. Thereafter on 14-6-2010 the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an amendment application, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector vide impugned order dated 27-8-2010. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed revision before Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, which was also dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 8-6-20 12. 4. The defendant/petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the above orders, whereby the amendment application has been rejected. 5. The amendment application had been filed on the ground that due to ignorance of some important points, the same could not raised in the W.S. which are necessary to resolve the controversy. In the amendment application the proposed armaments sought are to this effect that the plaintiff’s father was ousted forever from the disputed land 35 years ago by late Sri V.S. Rawat, father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2; that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the land in dispute is situated within Haldwani-Kathgodam Municipal Board and U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act is not applicable to the land in suit. 6. The plaintiffs filed objection against the amendment application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to convince the court that the provisions of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act are not applicable to the land in dispute and no documentary evidence in support of this fact has been filed and the only question on which he wanted to amend the suit was that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 8. 8. In the W.S. the defendants wanted to add para-19 that the suit is barred by Order-9. Order-9 Rule-4 C.P.C. provides that where a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or rule-3, fresh suit is not barred. 9. The petitioner/defendants had put appearance before the trial court in the year 1992 and after a lapse of more than twenty years the amendment as has been sought is not necessary to decide the controversy. The plea taken in the amendment application that the plaintiff’s father was ousted forever from the disputed land 35 years ago by late Sri V.S.Rawat father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs have no right and claim on the disputed land, had already been taken in para-3 of W.S. that Jaswant Singh had never been in possession of the land in suit. He never cultivated the land and the land was exclusively owned and cultivated by the father of the answering defendants and the father of the plaintiff Sri Jaswant Singh Rawat did not at all inherit the land in dispute from Late Frank Rawat. 10. In para-4 of the W.S. it has been admitted by the petitioner/defendants that U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act is in application on the land in suit. Therefore, now the amendment cannot be allowed contrary to the pleas, which have already been taken in the W.S. 11. I do not find any merit in the amendment application and the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class Haldwani and the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner are perfectly justified. 12. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed at the threshold. 13. However, since the matter is old, the Assistant Collector concerned is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit pending before him and decide the same expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Both the parties shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the case.