Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1309 (ALL)

Shakuntala Devi v. Additional Commissioner

2020-11-10

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shailendra Singh, Counsel for the Caveator and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 115-P of U.P. Zamindari Rules and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner-1st, Prayagraj in a revision under Section 333, whereby this revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The order dated 07.09.1989 passed by the Collector, Fatehpur is also impugned. 3. It appears that one Kalawati, instituted a case under Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, seeking cancellation of allotment of a housing site over plot No.1692 situated in Village Kundanpur, Magre Jafrabad Pargana Kotiya Guneer, Tehsil-Bindki, District-Fatehpur. 4. The cancellation was sought on the ground that the complainant was owner of Plot No.1691 and that a road was recorded as Plot No.1854. Disputed Plot No.1692 is situated between the road and the plot of complainant-Kalawati. It was also alleged that the procedure prescribed for such allotment has not been followed. 5. The Collector, Fatehpur, vide order dated 07.09.1989, dismissed the case under Rule 115-P on the findings that Kalawati was not an aggrieved person and that no evidence had been filed to establish any illegality in the procedure required to be followed while making the allotment. 6. This order passed by the Collector, Fatehpur was never subjected to any challenge by Kalawati. 7. It is stated that that on 08.08.2014, petitioner purchased a portion of Plot No.1691 from Kalawati. Thereafter, the petitioner purchaser filed a revision against the order dated 07.09.1989, whereby the case filed by petitioners' predecessor in interest, for cancellation of the allotment had been dismissed. 8. This revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 holding that the revisionist had no concern with Plot No.1692, which was subject matter of the allotment under challenge. 9. It appears that before the revisional court, it was sought to be pleaded on behalf of petitioner that the allotment was liable to be cancelled because if any constructions were raised over the housing sites allotted, ultimately the same would have to be demolished in case road widening was resorted to. 10. 9. It appears that before the revisional court, it was sought to be pleaded on behalf of petitioner that the allotment was liable to be cancelled because if any constructions were raised over the housing sites allotted, ultimately the same would have to be demolished in case road widening was resorted to. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that Shakuntala Devi, petitioner had no locus either to file the revision nor this writ petition. 11. The case under Rule 115-P of the Rules had been dismissed holding that petitioners' predecessor in interest, Kalawati, was not an aggrieved person and had no concern with Plot No.1692, subject matter of allotment and that she had not produced any evidence to show that the procedure prescribed for the allotment, had not been followed. This order attained finality. The petitioner, who purchased portion of Kalawati's Plot No.1961 in the year 2014 did not get a right to challenge the order dated 07.09.1889, which had attained finality against her predecessor in interest. For the same reason, even this writ petition at her instance is not maintainable. 12. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon (State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Ramshri and another), AIR 1976 Allahabad 121 specially paragraph 8 wherein the Apex Court has considered the import of the term "aggrieved person" and it has been hold that a "person aggrieved must be a man who had suffered a legal grievance, a man whom a decision has been pronounced which had wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title of something." 13. In my considered opinion, the petitioner who arrived on the scene on the basis of a sale deed in the year 2014 cannot to be an aggrieved person in view of what has been hold by the Apex Court, as cited above. 14. The petitioner has purchased a portion of Plot No.1691. Her predecessor in interest, Kalawati, was held to be an unconcerned person and not aggrieved by the allotment over Plot No.1692. Kalawati permitted this order to attain finality. 25 years later, a purchaser from Kalawati cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. 15. Apart from the above, it appears relevant to observe that disputed Plot No.1692 lies between petitioners Plot No.1691 and a road. Kalawati permitted this order to attain finality. 25 years later, a purchaser from Kalawati cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. 15. Apart from the above, it appears relevant to observe that disputed Plot No.1692 lies between petitioners Plot No.1691 and a road. The petitioner as also her predecessor earlier, appear to have filed for cancellation of the allotment, malafide as they did not want their access to the main road, obstructed by construction of houses by the allottees. 16. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable. It is in any case wholly devoid of merits and is clearly malafide. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month failing which the same would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.