Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1123 (ALL)

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. State of U. P.

2014-04-07

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Vikash Budhwar for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri N.C. Tripathi for contesting respondent -4. 2. In the facts of the case the counsel for the respondents does not propose to file any counter affidavit and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being decided finally. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner (1st), respondent-2 passed in Revision No. 3/2013-14 granting interim order and directing the parties to maintain status quo during pendency of the revision. 4. The dispute related between the parties is in respect of plot no. 1017 of village Kanti, pargana Arail, district Allahabad. The petitioner is a lessee of Rajesh Kumar, respondent-5 while Smt. Shashi Shukla, respondent-4 has purchased the land from the co-sharer namely Sri Ram alias Sri Nath who was having 1/7 share in it. According to the petitioner 6/7 share of Sri Nath was in the southern side of this plot while remaining 1/6 share of Rajesh Kumar was in the northern side. Accordingly, Sri Nath has executed a sale deed giving specific boundary, in the sale deed itself. Thus on the plot the share of respondent-4 is almost separate and share of respondent-5 was also almost separate and in such circumstances by the impugned order the right of respondent-4 is not affected. 5. According to the respondents, since there is no partition of the land in dispute and the plot is still a single plot therefore by only mentioning the boundary the right over specific portion cannot be derived. Respondent-4 was a co-bhumidhar of the land in dispute as such before passing any right, notice ought to have been given to her. On the aforesaid allegations respondent-4 filed a revision against the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 27.11.2013. In the revision, respondent-4 also filed an application for grant of interim injunction. The application was heard by Additional Commissioner (1st) who by the impugned order dated 13.3.2014 found that there were 5 sub-plots of plot no. 1017. A part of plot no. 1017 ka has been sold to respondent-4 as there was no partition of the plot as such the impugned order could not have been passed without giving any notice to respondent-4 who was the co-sharer in the land in dispute. 1017. A part of plot no. 1017 ka has been sold to respondent-4 as there was no partition of the plot as such the impugned order could not have been passed without giving any notice to respondent-4 who was the co-sharer in the land in dispute. Being prima facie satisfied, he directed the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the matter was litigated between the parties in the Civil Court and the Civil Court refused to grant any interim injunction then the order was challenged in appeal i.e. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20/2014 and the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad by order dated 18.2.2014 directed the parties to maintain staus quo. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Writ C No. 13559 of 2014 and this Court prima facie being satisfied that the sale deed of respondent-4 was in respect of different portion of the land as such she has no right to object the use of the land by the petitioner and Rajesh Kumar, which was entirely a different portion, stayed the operation of the order dated 18.2.2014 by order dated 4.3.2014. The order dated 4.3.2014 is an order between the parties and binding upon them. No contradictory order could have been passed by the Commissioner directing the parties to maintain status quo. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. A perusal of the order of this Court as well as the order of Commissioner shows that the order of Commissioner is directly contradictory to the order of this Court dated 4.3.2014. In such circumstances, the order of this Court will prevail although it is an ex-parte order but it is binding upon the parties. However, the counsel for the respondents submits that the Commissioner be directed to disposed of the revision within a time limit so that the controversy shall be finally decided between the parties. 8. In the facts of the case it will be appropriate that the revision shall be decided by the Commissioner finally. The counsel for the petitioner informs that 28.4.2014 is the date fixed in the revision before the Commissioner and both the parties agreed that they will not take any adjournment unless there is any compelling reason. 9. 8. In the facts of the case it will be appropriate that the revision shall be decided by the Commissioner finally. The counsel for the petitioner informs that 28.4.2014 is the date fixed in the revision before the Commissioner and both the parties agreed that they will not take any adjournment unless there is any compelling reason. 9. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to Additional Commissioner (1st), Allahabad to decide the revision finally, on merit without being influenced by any observation of this Court, either on the date fixed in the revision or any other date which shall not be fixed after more than one month thereafter. Till disposal of the revision the order dated 13.3.2014 is kept in abeyance.