Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3793 (ALL)

Pramod Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-11-24

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. – Heard Sri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Digvijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6 to 8 and Sri Mata Prasad,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4. No one appears for the respondent no.5. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 3.10.2015 and the revisional order dated 30.7.2016. 2. An application under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 was filed by the respondents no.6, 7 and 8 for converting Gata no.23 ka/2 area 0.616 hectare from agricultural land to non agricultural abadi land as they wanted to construct cold storage on the said land. The S.D.M. by order dated 3.10.2015 has allowed the application recording a finding that on the plot in dispute there is already abadi. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed revision. Revision has also been rejected by order dated 30.7.2016. Before the revisional authority the contention of the petitioner was that one Panna Lal has executed a Will deed in his favour in respect of the land in question and that there was also compromise between the parties on 12.1.2016. The revisional court has held that this matter is already engaging attention of the Consolidation Court in other proceedings and 17.3.2016 is fixed in those proceedings. During the pendency of proceedings before the revisional authority the petitioner filed Transfer Application before the Board of Revenue being T.A. no.546 of 2016 in which the Board passed an order on 7.4.2016 directing the Additional Commissioner not to pass any order in the meantime and fixed the case for 10.6.2016. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the stay order granted by the Board the Additional Commissioner proceeded to decide the revision and has passed the impugned order dated 30.7.2016. 5. This fact has seriously been disputed by Sri Digvijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.6, 7 and 8 and he has passed on to the Court an order of the Board of Revenue dated 17.6.2016 wherein the Board had directed the case to come up on 12.8.2016. The petitioner in the meantime also filed Writ Petition No.25109 of 2016, Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner in the meantime also filed Writ Petition No.25109 of 2016, Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner's contention before the Division Bench was that he is the owner of the land in question on the basis of a Will executed by Panna Lal who was a recorded tenure holder pursuant to consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench after hearing learned counsel for the parties has held that the petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder. His claim to be owner of the land in question, on the basis of a Will, is yet to be proved before the competent authority. The Division Bench has also held that the petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending before the civil court, therefore, no relief can be granted in the writ petition. Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 4.10.2016 which reads as under: - "The Director, Food and Processing, Lucknow granted permission to construct a Cold Storage on the land in question to the Respondent No. 11 of which, the Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are partners. The petitioner being aggrieved by the grant of this permission has filed the present writ petition contending that he is the owner of the land in question on the basis of a will executed by Panna lal, who was recorded tenure holder pursuant to consolidation proceedings. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that at the present moment, the petitioner is not a recorded tenure holder. His claim to be the owner of the land in question, on the basis of a will, is yet to be proved before the Competent Authority. We further find that the petitioner has also filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending before the Civil Court. In view of aforesaid, no relief can be granted in a writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed." 6. It is noticed that the sole basis of the claim of the petitioner is a Will which he alleges to have been executed in his favour by one Panna Lal. In view of aforesaid, no relief can be granted in a writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed." 6. It is noticed that the sole basis of the claim of the petitioner is a Will which he alleges to have been executed in his favour by one Panna Lal. The Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition in respect of the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Will that the petitioner is not the recorded tenure holder of the land in question over which respondents wanted to construct the cold storage and that the Will is yet to be proved by the competent court. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.