Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2198 (ALL)

Prachi Gupta v. State of U. P.

2014-07-24

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Sri R.P.Dubey has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 4, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal along with Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri R.P.Dubey along with Sri Satyendra Nath Tripathi learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 39/2009 filed under Section 143 of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as the order dated 20.5.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut in Revision No. 04/2013-14. 4. Vide order dated 24.6.2013, an application filed by the respondent no. 4 seeking recall of the order dated 9.2.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in a proceeding under Section 143 of U.P.Land Revenue Act, 1901 has been allowed. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 20.5.2014, the petitioner's revision against the order dated 24.6.2013 has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. 5. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner claims to be charitable trust running a technical Institution and it appears she has purchased the land in dispute, by two registered sale-deeds, from one Puran Chand. After purchase of the aforesaid land, she has raised construction and started running engineering college. The respondent no. 4 has also got executed a sale-deed of some portion of the same land by the legal heirs of Puran Chand on 15.9.2012. After the aforesaid sale-deed, on 2.5.2013, the respondent no. 4 has filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 9.2.2009 on the ground that the property was never partitioned and the petitioner has purchased unpartition land and the order dated 9.2.2009 was an exparte order. The Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the application of the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 24.6.2013. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner, herein, has filed revision, which has been dismissed on 20.5.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has purchased the land after partition and no objection was raised either at the time of execution of the sale-deed or when the petitioner has constructed huge building for running engineering college thereon. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner, herein, has filed revision, which has been dismissed on 20.5.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has purchased the land after partition and no objection was raised either at the time of execution of the sale-deed or when the petitioner has constructed huge building for running engineering college thereon. It is also contended that the application seeking recall of the order on the instance of the respondent no. 4 was not maintainable as no objection was filed with respect to order dated 9.2.2009 prior to 2013 when the application seeking recall was filed or in 2012 when the sale-deed was executed. It is further contended that with a view to harass the petitioner, this application was filed, which has been allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In his submissions, the order passed by the Sub-Divisonal Officer as well as of the learned Commissioner are patently illegal as the respondent no. 4 had no legal authority to seek recall of the order because he is the subsequent purchaser of the land and when the original tenure holder has never raised such dispute that unpartition land was purchased, how can vendee raise such objection. 7. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that everything was done exparte and the vendor from whom she has purchased the land was co-sharer and unpartition portion was purchased by the petitioner, therefore his application is maintainable and there is no illegality in the impugned orders. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There may be substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, but I am not inclined to interfere in this matter at this stage for the simple reason that only the order dated 9.2.2009 has been recalled and now everything has to be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer afresh. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut is directed to conclude the proceedings open on the instance of the respondent no. 4, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. Since counsel for both the parties are present in the court, they are well informed about the order passed today. 4, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. Since counsel for both the parties are present in the court, they are well informed about the order passed today. It is further observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer, shall decide the matter within the time aforesaid without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties. In case, adjournment is sought by either of the parties, that may be allowed only after imposing the cost of not less than Rs. 250/- per adjournment with the direction to deposit the cost by the next date fixed. In the fitness of the circumstances, till the conclusion of the proceedings, the parties shall maintain status quo on the spot. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.