Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2886 (ALL)

Raj Narayan Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-08-22

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri R.C. Singh for the petitioners and Sri A.N. Srivastava for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of CO dated 14.11.2008 and DDC dated 4.6.2016. CO by order dated 18.2.2008 decided the shares of different co-sharers in khata nos. 95, 96, 111 and 112B of village Jagatpur, pargana Kaswar Sarakari, district Varanasi. Consequently, he passed another order on 14.11.2008 under Rule 109-A for giving effect to the order dated 18.2.2008. The order of CO dated 14.11.2008 was challenged by Savitri Devi and others and Phool Chand and others (respondents). Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by SOC, who by order dated 17.1.2011 held that although the order of CO dated 18.2.2008 was not in respect of chak no. 202, but by subsequent order dated 14.11.2008, chak no. 202 has also been affected. As such, the order of CO dated 14.11.2008 was illegal. On this finding, he allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to CO to pass a fresh order, after hearing the parties. Kuldeep (respondent-4) filed a revision against the order of SOC dated 17.1.2011. Before the revisional court, Kuldeep raised a ground that as the High Court in Writ - B No. 28564/2006 by order dated 23.5.2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo on the spot, therefore, the order of CO dated 18.2.2008 cannot be given effect to. DDC found that in Writ - B No. 28564/2006, Smt. Matuna Devi alone was contesting party, while by order dated 14.11.2008, the chak of Smt. Matuna Devi is not affected at all, as such, the order dated 14.11.2008 is not in violation of the order of High Court. On this finding, he dismissed the revision. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record. The reason given by DDC that in Writ - B No. 28564/2006, only Smt. Matuna Devi was party, therefore, order directing status quo to be maintained on the spot does not affect the other persons and the order of CO dated 14.11.2008 was not in violation and the interim order of this Court does not suffer from any illegality. Otherwise also, it is noticed that the petitioners have not challenged the order of CO dated 14.11.2008 in any appeal, therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the order of DDC. Otherwise also, it is noticed that the petitioners have not challenged the order of CO dated 14.11.2008 in any appeal, therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the order of DDC. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.