Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1914 (ALL)

Sardar Saran Singh v. Board of Revenue

2014-07-02

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Heard Sri K Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Abhishek Srivastava holding brief of Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, Rampur in Case No. 22 of 2013-14 (Shahab Ali Khan vs. Sardar Saran Singh and others) filed under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act, 1950) and the order dated 2.1.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad in Revision No. 20 of 2013-14 (Sardar Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). 3. Vide order dated 18.11.2013 the Sub Divisional Officer has registered the suit and directed the petitioner and other defendants in the suit to file written statement after rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 2.1.2014 the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.11.2013 has also been dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Allahabad. 4. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent nos. 3 to 9 have filed Suit No. 22 of 2013-14 (Shahab Ali Khan vs. Sardar Saran Singh and others) under section 229-B of the Act, 1950 seeking declaration of their bhumidhari right over the land in dispute, i.e. Khata No. 91 Plot No. 59, measuring about 3.0580 hectares, Khata No. 5, Plot No. 9, measuring about 2.7130 hectares and Khata No. 4, Plot No. 125 measuring about 0.1700 hectares situated at Gram Baradari, Tehsil Bilaspur District Rampur. In the aforesaid case, it appears before the suit could be registered and notice could be issued. The petitioner has filed an objection regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short Act, 1953) and it is also barred by time. 5. The contesting respondents (plaintiffs) have filed their reply to the objection stating therein that the respondents are recorded tenure holders on the basis of the order passed under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short Act, 1901) and filed suit seeking their right on the basis of succession. 5. The contesting respondents (plaintiffs) have filed their reply to the objection stating therein that the respondents are recorded tenure holders on the basis of the order passed under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short Act, 1901) and filed suit seeking their right on the basis of succession. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no right over the land in dispute. After hearing both the parties and considering the materials available on record the Sub Divisional Officer has registered the suit and directed the petitioner and other defendants to file their written statements. While doing so it has been observed by the Sub Divisional Officer that the suit has been filed on the valid grounds and after filing of the written statement issues will be framed and thereafter each and every issue shall be considered and decided after hearing both the sides. 6. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed Revision No. 20 of 2013-14 (Sardar Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) before the Board of Revenue Allahabad. The said Revision has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable as the same has been filed against an interlocutory order inviting written statement. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the both the courts below have erred in passing the impugned order as the same have been passed without considering the petitioner's objection on merit. He further submitted that the village was under consolidation operation which was initiated in the year 1995 and notification de-notifying the village under section 52 of the Act, 1953 was issued in the year 2003, therefore, the suit was barred under section 49 of the Act, 1953 and also barred by limitation. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance of the two judgments of the Apex Court, namely, Narendra Singh and others vs. Jai Bhagwan and others ( 2006 (100) RD 69) and Sita Ram vs. Chhota Bhondey and others ( (1990 RD 439). 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the records I find that it is not a fit case to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that by the impugned order the petitioner and other defendants have only been directed to file their written statements and issues are yet to be framed. At this stage no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner has full opportunity at later stage when this question can be considered as to whether suit is really barred by time under section section 49 of the act, 1953. So far as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Narendra Singh (supra) and Sita Ram (supra) are concerned the facts involved in those cases are different to the facts involved in this case as in those cases after full fledged opportunity the judgments were rendered and those judgments were under challenge before the Apex Court but here at the very initial stage objection of the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the suit has been rejected on the ground that it can be seen after filing of the written statements and after framing of the issues. 9. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.