Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 435 (ALL)

Kalawati v. Board of Revenue

2024-02-08

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Sri. R.N. Tripathi assisted by Sri. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.- 9,10 & 11, Sri. Anshul Nigam, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed by the petitioners, claiming co-tenancy right along with defendants to the extent of 1/2 share as well as partition of the plots. The suit was registered as Suit No.T201702323055366 of 2017-18. The S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj/respondent no.3 issued notice to the defendants in the aforementioned suit. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement, denying the plaint allegations. Respondent no.3 framed issued in the aforementioned suit. During pendency of the aforementioned suit proceeding, an application under Section 212(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3, to transfer the suit proceeding from the court concerned to any other court which was registered as Case No.06884/2019 before the Chief Revenue Officer, Prayagraj. The Chief Revenue Officer has heard the transfer application and dismissed the same vide order dated 16.11.2019. Against the order dated 16.11.1999, defendant/respondent no.10 filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The aforementioned appeal was heard by the Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.1.2020. The petitioners filed Writ C No.755/2018 for mandamus for disposal of the pending injunction application in the aforementioned suit as defendants/respondents were creating 3rd party interest in respect to the plot in dispute. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.2.2018 with the direction to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the pending injunction application within a period of 3 months and direction was also issued that the pending suit shall also be disposed of expeditiously. The defendants/respondent No - 6/Smt. Ranno Devi has filed further transfer application against the Presiding Officer/S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj (Sri. Vinod Kumar Pandey) before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj on the ground that she will not get justice from the court concerned which was registered as Transfer Application No - 1031 of 2021. The defendants/respondent No - 6/Smt. Ranno Devi has filed further transfer application against the Presiding Officer/S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj (Sri. Vinod Kumar Pandey) before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj on the ground that she will not get justice from the court concerned which was registered as Transfer Application No - 1031 of 2021. In the aforementioned transfer application, an objection has been filed at the instance of the petitioners that grounds mentioned in the transfer application is misconceived and the same has been filed in order to linger the proceeding of pending suit. Another transfer application was filed by respondent No - 10/Krishna Kant Patel before the Board of Revenue for transferring the proceeding of aforementioned suit which was registered as Transfer Application No - 1184 of 2021. Respondent no.1/Board of Revenue vide order dated 1.7.2021 decided the transfer application no.1031 and transferred the proceeding of the pending suit from the court of S.D.O., Karchhana, Prayagraj to the court of S.D.O., Sadar, Prayagraj. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 1.7.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in Transfer Application No.1031/2021. 3. This Court on 3.12.2021 directed the parties to exchange their respective affidavit and it was further ordered that no third-party-right shall be created over the property in dispute. The Court has further ordered that the pendency of the present writ petition will not amount to any stay of the proceeding before the trial court and the trial court is free to proceed with the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioners on 22.8.2017 which is still pending before the trial court. He further submitted that on the transfer application filed by defendant/respondent, the proceeding of the suit has been delayed. He also submitted that earlier transfer application filed by the defendant, was rejected but in order to linger on the proceeding, another transfer application has been filed before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed without calling comments from the Presiding Officer concerned. He further submitted that the transfer application cannot be allowed merely on the allegations of the parties rather it is the duty of the court to examine the issue as to whether the ground taken in the transfer application are genuine or not. He further submitted that the transfer application cannot be allowed merely on the allegations of the parties rather it is the duty of the court to examine the issue as to whether the ground taken in the transfer application are genuine or not. He finally submitted that the allegation has been made against the then S.D.O, concern who has been transferred from the court concerned, as such, no ground exist at present. He submitted that the proceeding of the case be summoned from the court of S.D.O., Sadar, Prayagraj and the S.D.O., Karchhana, Prayagraj be directed to conclude the proceeding of the pending case expeditiously. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the ground taken in the transfer application was a genuine ground, as such, the transfer application was rightly allowed by the Board of Revenue. He further submitted that in pursuance of the impugned order, transferring the case, the matter is pending before the S.D.O., Sadar, Prayagraj, as such, necessary direction be issued to respondent no.4/S.D.O., Sadar, Prayagraj to conclude the pending suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed at the instance of the petitioners is pending before the trial court/S.D.O. There is also no dispute about the fact about the fact that under the impugned order the transfer application filed by defendant/respondent, has been allowed and proceeding of suit has been transferred from the court of respondent no.3/S.D.O., Karchhana, Prayagraj to the court of respondent no.4/S.D.O., Sadar, Prayagraj. 8. The alleged ground taken for transfer of the suit proceeding was against the then Presiding Officer (Sri. Vinod Kumar Pandey), S.D.O. Sadar, Prayagraj, who is not holding the post at present, as such, the matter can be decided by respondent No - 3/S.D.O., Karchhana, Prayagraj. 9. It is material that suit under Section- 144/116 of the U.P.Revenue Code 2006 filed by petitioners is pending before trial Court for last more than six year due to filing of repeated application of transfer at the instance of defendant/respondent. 10. 9. It is material that suit under Section- 144/116 of the U.P.Revenue Code 2006 filed by petitioners is pending before trial Court for last more than six year due to filing of repeated application of transfer at the instance of defendant/respondent. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 1.7.2021, passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue in Transfer Application NO.1031/2021 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 11. The writ petition stands allowed. Respondent no.4/S.D.M, Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj is directed to remit the record of Suit No.T201702323055366 (Banwari Lal & Others v. Ramesh & Others) to the court of respondent no.3/S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj forthwith and respondent no.3 is directed to decide the suit after giving parties to lead evidence, according to the issues framed in suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before him in accordance with law. 12. Counsel for the petitioners shall file certified copy of this order before respondent nos. 3 & 4 for necessary compliance of the order of this Court. 13. Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to communicate this order to respondent No - 3 & 4 within one week.