Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1282 (ALL)

Bachchan Lal v. Banshraj

2018-05-21

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2018
JUDGMENT : VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiva Priya Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed to set-aside the impugned orders dated 15.02.2018 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C. IInd), Jaunpur in M.C.A. No. 177 of 2004 (Bachchan Lal Vs. Banshraj & Others) and also the order dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahar, Jaunpur in Suit No. 241 of 2002 (Bachchan Lal Vs. Banshraj & Others). It is also prayed that the injunction application filed by the petitioner be allowed forthwith and the respondents be restrained from interfering in right, title, possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property in dispute during the pendency of the present petition. 3. By the order dated 04.10.2004 interim injunction application filed by the petitioner was rejected against which the Misc. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. A suit no. 241of 2002 was filed by the petitioner against Banshraj & Others for permanent injunction. The injunction was refused by the Trial Court on the ground that the allotment (Patta) was granted by the Gram Pradhan, Vinod Kumar Singh, and the receipt issued by the Land Management Committee dated 01.10.1992 is not available in the register of Tehsil office. Vinod Kumar Singh has denied execution of any such Patta in favour of the petitioner although he has not given clear reply about his signatures on the affidavit. It is also not asserted that the petitioner belongs to SC/ST category whereas under Section 122-C of the UPZA&LR Act, the land could have been allotted to a person belonging to SC/ST category and the landless agricultural labourers. The aforesaid order was affirmed in the appeal. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the revenue proceedings, an order of status quo dated 11.09.2009 has passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 48834 of 2009. This order was placed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court without considering the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the order suffers from non-application of mind. 5. This order was placed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court without considering the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the order suffers from non-application of mind. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of status quo has been passed in revenue proceedings which operates in a different field and, therefore, any interim order granted in the revenue proceedings cannot be interfered with by the Civil Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 7. On perusal of the record I find that Akar Patra No. 41 which is clear from paper no. 92, land no. 1272 (old no. 1394) is recorded as Banjar. The existence of alleged Patta has categorically been disputed being a forged document. The receipt dated 01.10.1992 recording allotment allegedly by the Land Management Committee has not been recorded in the register of the Tehsil office and the Gram Pradhan, Vinod Kumar Singh, in his affidavit dated 03.09.2002 has denied issuance of such Patta in favour of the plaintiff petitioner herein, although he has not disputed the signatures on affidavit. A finding has been recorded that plot no. 1273 is not the Abadi land and it has also not been clarified by the plaintiff that under which provision the allotment was made in his favour. As such, no prima facie case was found by both the Courts below. It has also been noted that the original suit was filed in the year 2002 and in fact no interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner. The interim order granted in the revenue proceedings operates in different field. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.