Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 231 (ALL)

Surendra Kumar Rai v. State Of U. P.

2024-01-19

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1.Heard Mr. Ajai Kumar Rai holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.6-Gram Sabha. 2.Brief facts of the case are that plot No- 850M area 0.0090 hectare situated in village - Bheelampur chhapra, Pergana - Atraulia, Tehasil - Budhanpur, District - Azamgarh was recorded as Navin Patri in the revenue record. A report dated 20.3.2018 was submitted that petitioner is in possession of 0.009 hectare area of plot No - 850M since before 29.11.2012 by raising residential mandai over the same as such the plot No - 850M area 0.0090 hectare is to be recorded as abadi class 6(2) after expunging the entry of Navin Patri, the same was registered as Case No - 58 under section - 67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 Report Versus Surendra Kumar Rai before respondent No-5/ Sub Divisional officer, Budhampur, Azamgarh and the same was finally decided by respondent No-5 Vide order dated 6.4.2018 approving the report dated 20.3.2018 and plot No - 850M area 0.0090 hectare was ordered to be recorded as Abadi Class 6(2) expunging the entry of Navin Patri. Against the order dated 6.4.2018 passed by respondent No-5 one Surya kumar filed a restoration application dated 22.5.2018. Petitioner's brother (respondent No - 7 to 10) also filed a restoration application dated 5.6.2018/ 19.6.2018. Petitioner filed his objection dated 14.6.2022 to the restoration applications Respondent No - 7 filed a Writ C No - 9923 of 2022 before this Court for expeditious disposal of his restoration application dated 5.6.2018 against the order dated 6.4.2018, the aforementioned Writ - petition was disposed of by this Court Vide order dated 26.5.2022 for deciding the restoration application expeditiously preferably within period of 2 months. State of U.P also filed a restoration - application dated 21.6.2022 along with the prayer for condonation of delay against the order dated 6.4.2018. Respondent No - 5 vide order dated 10.1.2023 allowed the restoration application filed against the order dated 6.4.2018 and restored the case on its original number for fresh decision. State of U.P also filed a restoration - application dated 21.6.2022 along with the prayer for condonation of delay against the order dated 6.4.2018. Respondent No - 5 vide order dated 10.1.2023 allowed the restoration application filed against the order dated 6.4.2018 and restored the case on its original number for fresh decision. Against the order 6.4.2018 petitioner also filed a Revision No - 195A of 2023 before respondent No - 3 / Commissioner although on the withdrawal application dated 14.2.2023 filed on behalf of petitioner the revision filed by petitioner was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 15.3.2023. Petitioner challenged the order dated 10.1.2023 before respondent No - 2 / Board of Revenue by way of Revision No - 528 of 2023 under Section - 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.3.2023. Review application filed against the order dated 16.3.2023 was also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2023 hence this writ petition for the following prayer: "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated13.10.2023 and 16.03.2023 passed by Hon'ble Board of Revenue, UI.P. Lucknow in Case No. REW/1146/2023/Azamgarh and REV/528/2023/Azamgarh (Surendra Vs. Gram Sabha-Bheelampur Chhapara, Tehsil- Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh under Section211 and 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari/S.D.M. Budhanpur,Azamgarh in Case No.00544/2021 (Report Vs. Surendra) under Section 67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 during the pendency of instant writ petition before this Hon'ble Court so that the justice may be done, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury (Annexure Nos, 1,2 and 3 to this writ petition). (II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the S.D.M. Budhanpur, Azamgarh not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner of gata No.850/0.009 hect. so that the justice may be done." 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted benefit under Section 67 -A (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the basis of the report submitted by the authorities. He submitted that against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 -A(1)of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 several restoration applications were filed. He submitted that one of the restoration application was filed at the instance of the State. He submitted that against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 -A(1)of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 several restoration applications were filed. He submitted that one of the restoration application was filed at the instance of the State. He further submitted that restoration application filed by State has been allowed and matter has been restored for fresh consideration, which is abuse of process of law as earlier the proceeding was concluded on the basis of the report of the authorities which requires no interference. He submitted that against the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, restoring the proceeding under Section 67 -A (1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 petitioner first filed revision before the Commissioner, which was dismissed as not pressed. He further submitted that petitioner challenged the order of Sub Divisional Officer before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed on the ground that second revison at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable, without the considering the fact that earlier revision as already been dismissed as not pressed. therefore, the impugned order be set aside and order passed under Section 67 -A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 be affirmed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla learned counsel for respondent No.6-Gram Sabha submitted that restoration application has been filed on behalf of the State stating that no proper opportunity was afforded to the State before passing order in the proceeding under Section-67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that proceeding under Section - 67-A (1) of U.P.Revenue Code 2006 was conducted in arbitrary and illegal manner. They further submitted that impugned orders requires no interference. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the the fact that proceeding under Section 67 -A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been restored to its original under the impugned order dated 10.1.2023 and the revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed by revisional Court. 7. 6. There is no dispute about the the fact that proceeding under Section 67 -A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 has been restored to its original under the impugned order dated 10.1.2023 and the revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed by revisional Court. 7. In view of the averment made in the restoration application filed by the State to the effect that petitioner is not in possession of the plot and entire proceeding is manipulated as well as the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer restoring the proceeding under section 67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on its original number for fresh decision on merit no interference is required in the matter. 8. The Writ - Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent No.5-Sub Divisional Officer, Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh to conclude the proceeding under section 67-A (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 after affording proper opportunity of hearing to state / Gaon Sabha in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.