Smt. Ranjeeta Maurya v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33922 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Ranjeeta Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aprajit Yadav,Shyam Lal Yadav Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Instruction dated 3.10.2023 placed by Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is taken on record.

¶2Heard Mr. Ayub Khan holding brief of Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shyam Lal Yadav and Mr. Aprajit Yadav, Counsels for respondent no.5 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶3On 27.9.2023 following order was passed by this Court:- "1. Heard Mr. Ayyub Khan, holding brief of Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶2The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Soraon, District-Prayagraj, respondent no.2, to decide Case No.8982 of 2023, under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period as well as to restrain the respondents from changing the nature or making any construction over the plot in dispute till final decision of Case No.8982 of 2023, under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforementioned suit for partition, filed at the instance of the petitioner is pending before respondent no.2. He further submitted that the trial court, vide order dated 8.9.2023, granted interim order, directing both the parties to maintain status quo till the next date fixed in the matter. He further submitted that on 20.9.2023, the interim order was further extended till the next date fixed in the matter and the case was fixed for 22.9.2023. He submitted that on 22.9.2023, an application for extension of interim order was filed, which has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition but no order has been passed by the court, as such, contesting respondents are raising construction over the plot in dispute. He submitted that necessary direction be issued restraining the respondents from raising construction over the plot in dispute.

¶4Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Soraon, District-Prayagraj, respondent no.2, is directed to pass order on the stay extension application dated 22.9.2023, by the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 03.10.2023.

¶5Put up this matter, as fresh, on 04.10.2023.

¶6Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.2 within two days."o

4.eInepursuanceeofetheeorderedatede27.9.2023,eSubeDivisionaleOfficerehas passedetheeorderedatede3.10.2023ewhicherunseaseunder:-o "आददशeपतक नयतयतलयeउपजजलतजधकतरल मणडलeपयतगरतज,eजनपदeपयतगरतज,eतहसललeसकरतनव वतदeसनखयतe8982/2023 कन पयपटरलकक तeवतदeसनखयतeT202302030308982 रशलमतलeरजन लततeमझयeबनतमeहमलदतeबलबलeआवद अनतगत‌धतरत‌116,oअजधवनयमयः ‌उतቈ र‌पददश‌रतजस् व‌सनवहतत‌2006 ooooooooooooआज‌पततवलल‌पदश।‌उभयपकቌ ‌हतजजर‌आए।‌वतदल‌दतरत‌PDoहदततु‌बतत‌कहल‌गई‌एवन‌स् रगत‌पतररनत‌पत कक‌बढतनद‌हदततु‌पत‌दतजखि ल‌वकयत‌गयत।‌पवतवतदल‌सन०‌ 3oदतरत‌उपरककሹ ‌आरतजल‌मम‌अलग-2oखि ततद‌मम‌सनबनध‌म बतत‌ककी ‌गई।‌RI/oलद०‌कक‌इस‌वनदरश‌कद ‌सतर‌पत‌जतरल‌हक‌वक‌दक‌कतयरवदवस‌मद‌सनबनजधत‌पकቌ ो ‌कद ‌कब् जद‌एवन खि ततद‌कद ‌सनबनध‌मम‌स् पषቖ ‌आखयत‌पस् ततु ‌कर।म ‌पततवलल‌वतस् तद‌अवगኌ म‌कतयरवतहल‌वदनतनक‌22.9.23oकक‌पदश‌हक।‌तब तक‌कद ‌जलए‌स् रगन‌आददश‌बढतयत‌जतनत‌नयतयकवचि त‌पतलत‌हकतत‌ह।है oह०‌अप० र22.9.2023-oअजधवकሹ तगण‌नयतवयक‌कतय‌सद‌ववरत‌ह।है ‌सत०‌वत०‌26.9.2023।

26.09.2023-oपल०‌ओ०‌महकदय‌पशतसवनक‌कतयर‌मद‌व् यस् त।‌सत०‌वत०‌27.9.2023।

27.09.2023-oअजधवकሹ त‌नयतवयक‌कतयर‌सद‌ववरत‌ह।है ‌सत०‌वत०‌29.9.2023।

29.09.2023-oअजधवकሹ तगण‌नयतवयक‌कतयर‌सद‌सनववरत‌ह।है ‌सत०‌वत०‌3.10.2023।

03.10.2023-oooआज‌पदश।‌उभयपकቌ ‌हतजजर‌आए।‌वतदल‌कद ‌स् टद‌पत०‌पत‌ 22.9.23oकद ‌कቅ म‌मद‌सतुनत।‌पवतवतदल मसनखयत‌3oदतरत‌बततयत‌गयत‌वक‌वतदल‌640oखि ‌म‌सहखि ततद तर‌नहहሻ ‌ह।है ‌पवतवतदल‌सनखयत‌3oदतरत‌640खि /0.0640 हद०‌अकक षक‌घकवषत‌वकयद‌जतनद‌सनबनधल‌पततलदखि ‌वदनतनक‌27.9.23oकद ‌कቅ म‌मद‌उपरककሹ ‌आरतजल‌पर‌एवन‌वदनतनक

27.9.23oकद ‌आददश‌कद ‌कቅ म‌मद‌उपरककሹ ‌स् टद‌पत०‌पत‌गतटत‌सनखयत‌640oखि ‌कक‌छकड़ कर‌640oएवन‌640oग‌पर‌लतगप दकयय जयनद ददनय नयययसदचित पतरत हसतय हहै। अतमः आददश ददनयरक 8.9.23 गयटय सरखयय 640 खि हदततु शयनय समझय जयए। पतयवलर वयस्तद अदቇኌम कययरवयहर ददनयरक 1.10.23 पदश हस। ह० अस्प्ቖ सत्य पदतजलदप"

¶5Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order dated 3.10.2023 in arbitrary manner with respect to plot No. 640 Ka. He further submitted that order dated 8.9.2023 passed for maintaining status quo in the aforementioned partition suit in respect to plot No. 640 Ka and 640 Ga has been made operative but with respect to plot No. 640 Kha order of status quo has been made inoperative without any basis. He submitted that respondents are raising construction over the plot in dispute, as such, necessary direction be issued restraining the contesting respondents from raising construction over the plot in dispute that plot Nos. 640 Ka, 640 Kha and 640 Ga. He further submitted that relief claimed in the plaint is in respect of all the three plots that is plot Nos. 640 Ka, 640 Kha and 640 Ga, as such, order of status quo is to be made operative for all the three plots.

¶6On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Lal Yadav, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He further submitted that plot is Minjumla plot, as such, the remedy lies under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that suit for partition filed by the petitioner is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, as such, petitioner should press his pending suit in accordance with law rather writ of mandamus before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that even under the impugned order dated 30.10.2023, order has been passed maintaining the earlier order dated 8.9.2023 in respect to plot No. 640 Kha and 640 Ga, as such, no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed as petitioner has no right and title in respect to plot No. 640 Kha.

¶7I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶8There is no dispute about the fact that suit for partition filed by the petitioner is pending and there is also no dispute about the fact that plot which are in dispute are plot Nos. 640 Ka, 640 Kha and 640 Ga.

¶9In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.9.2023, the order has been passed by Sub-Divisional Officer on 3.10.2023 that order for status quo shall be in operation in respect to plot Nos. 640 Kha and 640 Ga as petitioner is stated to be having no share in plot No. 640 kha, as such, order of status quo shall not be operative in respect to plot No. 640 kha.

¶10Order dated 3.10.2023 granting interim protection in respect of two plots and refusing the interim protection in respect of one plot is interlocutory in nature, as such, no interference can be made at this stage of the proceeding in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Needless to say that suit is pending before Trial Court, as such, petitioner can establish his claim in accordance with law in respect of all the three plots.

¶11Considering the order dated 3.10.2023 as well as entire facts and circumstances, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Prayagraj to decide the pending suit No. 8982 of 2023 for partition in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within period of three months and the order for status quo which was granted in respect to plot Nos. 640 Ka and 640 Ga shall remain in operation till the pendency of the suit. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Vandana Y. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad