Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1959 (ALL)

Madeena v. State of U. P.

2024-08-29

JASPREET SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. In view of the controversy, which is involved in the instant petition, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by respondent No. 4 entertaining the revision preferred by private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and granting an interim order, whereby the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Tehsildar impugned therein has been stayed. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation proceedings were being contested between the petitioner and private respondent Nos. 6 and 7. After hearing the parties, the court of Tehsildar, Payagpur, District-Bahraich had passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 01.05.2024. The petitioner apprehending that private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 may escalate the matter, consequently, in order to avoid passing of any ex-parte order, the petitioner had filed a caveat in the court of Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, a copy of the said caveat has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed his caveat on 13.05.2024. However, private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also filed their revision before the Commissioner on the very same date, i.e. 13.05.2024. However, no fruitful proceedings were held on 13.05.2024, rather the matter was deferred for 21.05.2024. Thereafter, it was taken up by the court of Commissioner on 12.06.2024 and he transferred the matter to the court of Additional Commissioner Administration-I, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. The matter was again taken up by the Additional Commissioner on 20th June, 2024, but was deferred. However, on 27.06.2024, the revision was entertained and the interim order dated 27.06.2024 was passed, which is under challenge. 6. The matter was again taken up by the Additional Commissioner on 20th June, 2024, but was deferred. However, on 27.06.2024, the revision was entertained and the interim order dated 27.06.2024 was passed, which is under challenge. 6. It is urged that despite the caveat being available on record, the same was not duly reflected, as a result, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to put up his case while the revision and the interim application moved by the private respondents was to be considered by respondent No. 4. 7. It is in furtherance thereof, it has been urged that the Board of Revenue has formulated certain rules and regulations to ensure that the caveat petitions are filed on the on-line platform and the moment it is registered, it gets linked with the main petition whenever and wherever it is filed and the matter is listed and the details of the caveat is reflected, which can be seen on the website of the court concerned. 8. It is thus urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was taken by surprise that despite having filed his caveat on 13.05.2024, the order dated 27.06.2024 was passed, as a result, the purpose of filing the caveat was frustrated as the interim order was passed without noticing the petitioner and in such circumstances, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought an additional relief for issuing of certain directions regarding action to be taken against official concerned of the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda as they did not follow the guidelines or procedure as prescribed while dealing with the caveat. 10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 20th August, 2024 had required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the Board of Revenue insofar as the rules and regulations regarding the caveat are concerned. 11. Learned Standing Counsel in furtherance thereof has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 28th August, 2024 under the signatures of the Registrar of the Board of Revenue at Lucknow for perusal and the same is taken on record. 12. Shri Nitin Srivatava, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 11. Learned Standing Counsel in furtherance thereof has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 28th August, 2024 under the signatures of the Registrar of the Board of Revenue at Lucknow for perusal and the same is taken on record. 12. Shri Nitin Srivatava, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has pointed out that insofar as the fact that the petitioner as well as private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, they both filed the caveat as well as the revision respectively on the same date, i.e. 13.05.2024. However, what is disputed by learned counsel for the private respondents is that his revision apparently was filed prior in point of time, inasmuch as from the perusal of caveat, which has been brought on record including the registered postal cover indicates that the postal cover was handed over to the department at 2:42 pm and in any case the caveat would have only been filed thereafter. However, the revision was filed in the morning hours and thereafter it was listed for 21st May, 2024. 13. Hence, the submission is that the revision was filed at that point of time, when the caveat was not filed and further on all the subsequent dates there was no occasion for the said noting to be made. This fact apart from the fact that the order dated 27.06.2024 was passed by the Additional Commissioner and in case, if the petitioner had any grievance he could have approached the court concerned. However, the same has not been done, rather the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing the instant petition. In such circumstances, it is always open for the petitioner to raise his grievances before the court concerned, who needless to say, would take note of it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, it cannot be said that the order dated 27.06.2024 has been erroneously passed. 14. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 15. However, it cannot be said that the order dated 27.06.2024 has been erroneously passed. 14. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 15. The primary submission of Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that his caveat had been filed on 13.05.2024 and as per the given rules and regulations, the said caveat should have been linked with the petition filed by the private respondents and since admittedly, on 13.05.2024 the matter was not taken up rather the next date fixed was 21.05.2024, hence, upon linking of the said caveat at least the name of the petitioner or his counsel should have been reflected on all subsequent dates fixed, i.e. 21.05.2024, 12.06.2024, 20.06.2024 as well as on 27.06.2026. Since, the same has not been done on account of laches and negligence on the part of the court staff dealing with the caveat, the petitioner has been put to prejudice and in light thereof, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 16. If the aforesaid submission is tested on the facts available before this Court, it would reveal that the caveat though was filed on 13.05.2024, but the fact remains that the postal receipts which have been brought on record as part of Annexure No. 8 at running page 91 of the paper book, it would indicate that the postal covers were taken at 2:42 p.m. Apparently, the caveat could have only been filed thereafter. Since, there is no clear time in terms whereof it could be ascertained the time of filing of the caveat, but safely it can be inferred that it had to be post 2:42 pm on the same date, i.e. 13.05.2024. 17. In this view of the matter, the revision preferred by private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was earlier in point of time and even though the caveat was not reported it could not be said that there is any negligence insofar as the reporting of the caveat is concerned as the date fixed in the revision for 21.05.2024 would have been fixed earlier than filing of the caveat. 18. 6 and 7 was earlier in point of time and even though the caveat was not reported it could not be said that there is any negligence insofar as the reporting of the caveat is concerned as the date fixed in the revision for 21.05.2024 would have been fixed earlier than filing of the caveat. 18. Having taken a look at the rules as well as regulations relating to caveat, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 13 dated 19th March, 2018, it merely prescribes a procedure, which talks about automated linking of caveat with the petitions so that there is less of human error and certain issues like the filing of the caveat and getting it connected with the petition concerned and reflecting the presence of the caveat on all subsequent dates including in the cause list is only for the benefit of the court and the parties concerned. 19. In the instant case, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the caveat was not prior in point of time of the filing of the revision dated 13.05.2024. The rules and regulations do not indicate that in case if the caveat is filed subsequent to the filing of the petition, then in such case also the said caveat would automatically get linked to the petition and for all subsequent dates it would be reflected. 20. Be that as it may, since the admitted position in the instant case is that the revision had been filed prior in point of time, accordingly, even if the order dated 27.06.2024, which was passed, yet it cannot be said that that was any lapse of any official of the office of the Commissioner. The petitioner always has an opportunity to file an application for recall of the order or vacation thereof on the basis of all pleas, legal or otherwise, which may be available to the petitioner. 21. The petitioner always has an opportunity to file an application for recall of the order or vacation thereof on the basis of all pleas, legal or otherwise, which may be available to the petitioner. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned being merely interlocutory in nature does not decide any rights of the petitioners, hence the ends of justice can be served by permitting the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, where the matter is pending within a week from today raising all permissible grounds as available to him in law and in case, if such an application is moved the court concerned shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment attempt to decide the said objections within two weeks thereafter. 22. It is informed by learned counsel for the parties that the next date fixed before the Additional Commissioner is 25th September, 2024. Accordingly, it will be preferable if the application as moved by the petitioner is decided on the date fixed itself, in case if the parties able to exchange their pleadings or if the same is not possible, then not later than two weeks thereafter. 23. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 24. Before parting with the matter, this Court further directs the Board of Revenue-respondent No. 2 to ensure that the rules and regulations, which have been framed must take note of the concern that whenever a caveat is filed, it must be immediately linked to the petition. A specific time should be allotted within which a caveat is to be filed so that it gets registered being effective from the following working day so that even if a petition is filed in the morning hours even than the caveat can be easily linked and the rule can be followed scrupulously. 25. It, if the caveat is filed, it would be recorded for one particular date that is to say that all caveat petitions received by one particular time can be taken to have been filed on that particular date and beyond that the reporting can go on to the next subsequent dates. 25. It, if the caveat is filed, it would be recorded for one particular date that is to say that all caveat petitions received by one particular time can be taken to have been filed on that particular date and beyond that the reporting can go on to the next subsequent dates. This Court minimizes the conclusion as well as inconvenience to the parties, inasmuch as, the basic purpose is to ensure smooth administration of justice rather than to create technical creases. 26. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.