Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1066 (ALL)

Munni Lal v. State of U. P.

2015-05-01

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Heard Ms Vibha Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.2.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner 1st, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Revision No. 101 of 2012, Premnath Tiwari v. Munni Lal and others, by which the revision has been allowed and the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer (First), Jaunpur has been set aside. 2. While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Additional Commissioner (First) has erred in allowing the revision particularly in the circumstances when the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was to be paid by the petitioners pursuant to the order of the Appellate Court dated 14.10.2011, has not been paid. 3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners filed Suit No. 175/96-97 of 1992, Onkar Nath and others v. State of U.P. through Collector Jaunpur and others, under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kerakat, Jaunpur. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 5.3.1999. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondents herein filed an application for restoring the proceeding to its original number after recall of the judgment dated 5.3.1999. The restoration application was rejected by the order dated 29.6.2005. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, First, Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi. The appeal was allowed vide the judgment and order dated 14.10.2011 and the earlier judgment and decree dated 5.3.1999 was set aside with the condition that in case the respondents herein deposit Rs. 10,000/- upto 15.11.2011 for paying it to the petitioners/plaintiffs, one more opportunity be given to the respondents and the case be decided within a period of six months. 4. It appears from the record that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 14.10.2011, therefore, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer 1st, Jaunpur stating that since the respondents herein have not complied with the order dated 14.11.2011, the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1999 be maintained. The Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the application and maintained the decree dated 5.4.1999. The Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the application and maintained the decree dated 5.4.1999. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner 1st, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, being Revision No. 101 of 2012, Prem Nath Tiwari v. Munni Lal and others. The Revisional Court has recorded a finding that Rs. 10,000/- had been deposited in the treasury on 14.11.2011 whereas it was to be deposited before 15.11.2011. The Revisional Court found that in view of the fact that the required money was deposited, therefore, the Court below should not have taken such a technical view while passing the order dated 4.4.2012. Taking note of the aforesaid fact the Revisional Court has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 4.4.2012. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the direction of the Court was to pay the money to the plaintiffs/petitioners which has yet not been paid, therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner 1st, Varanasi Division, Varanasi has erred in allowing the revision. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and looking into the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, that challan of Rs.10,000/- was filed on 14.11.2011, therefore, in my opinion, the revisional Court has not committed any illegality in allowing the revision looking to the requirement as was required in the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Court. It is observed that the petitioners may file an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the respondents through the challan along with a certified copy of this order and the said money be paid to the petitioners. It is also observed that in case the money has not been deposited and not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to file an application in this writ petition. It is also observed that in case the money has been deposited, the petitioners shall be permitted to withdraw the same. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in case the order dated 14.11.2011 is being complied with, the suit itself shall be decided within the period as directed by the Appellate Court while passing the order dated 14.11.2011. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. ………………..