Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3467 (ALL)

Durgawati v. State of U. P.

2016-10-18

A.P.SAHI, RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 2. This petition is filed by the wife of Sri Baijnath Mishra. She contends that in a dispute between her and her husband, the matter reached this Court in Writ Petition No.5957 (MS) of 2010, Km. Ponnam Mishra and others v. Additional District Judge and another. The High Court after hearing the parties delivered it's judgment on 9.12.2010 which ultimately decided the family dispute making provisions by virtue of the said judicial intervention in favour of the petitioner-Smt. Durgawati. It was provided specifically that she shall retain ownership and possession over the land recorded in her name, but so far as the land recorded in the name of the husband is concerned, she will maintain possession over half of the said land of her husband during her lifetime for her livelihood and the husband shall not transfer it to any other person during his lifetime nor create any charge over it or pledge it for any other purpose. 3. The respondent No.2 is now proceeding to acquire the land by different methods including through private negotiations and sale and it has published a notice to that effect inviting claims in this regard which also includes the land presently in dispute recorded in the name of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that her husband may negotiate the land with the respondent No.2 and ultimately avoid the rigor of the judgment dated 9.12.2010. 4. Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the land, as yet, has not yet been negotiated or transferred to the respondent No.2 and as such, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any mandamus to the respondent No.2 as no title at present vests in the second respondent. Even otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that the respondent No.2 is under any obligation through any statutory provision or executive instructions for adjudicating any such claims including that which is sought to be raised through the writ petition, but at the same time, the respondent No.2 would be governed by the principles of caveat emptor. Even otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that the respondent No.2 is under any obligation through any statutory provision or executive instructions for adjudicating any such claims including that which is sought to be raised through the writ petition, but at the same time, the respondent No.2 would be governed by the principles of caveat emptor. Consequently, it will be open to the respondent No.2 to examine this aspect before it proceeds to negotiate any such claim with the recorded tenure holder keeping in view the judgment dated 9.12.2010. 5. The petition stands disposed off with the said observations without prejudice to the rights of any person claiming any interest over the land in question.