Hemchandra v. State of U.P. and 29 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36476 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hemchandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 29 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Chaubey,Brijendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶2The instant petition has been filed against the order dated

20.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2/ Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj in revision

No.01938/2018

computerized

Case No.C201802000001938 (Badri Prasad Vs. Harinarayan and others) Under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, 1950.

3.In the petition, it is mentioned that respondent No.3/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana, Prayagraj has passed the preliminary decree in suit for partition filed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 17.12.2015 in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that on behalf of the petitioner's father (Badri Prasad) order dated 17.12.2015 was challenged before Commissioner and Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20.01.2023 allowed the revision set aside the order dated 17.12.2015 and remanded the matter back before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana, Prayagraj to decide the matter afresh after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. He further submitted that revisional court in place remanding the matter back before the Sub-Divisional Officer/ Trial Court, himself should decide the entire dispute.

¶4Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent submitted that instant petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable as the revision filed by the petitioner's father has been allowed and matter has been remanded back before the trial court to decide the partition suit afresh in accordance with law. He further submitted that revisional court has rightly allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to decide the suit for partition afresh in the interest of justice which requires no interference by this Court.

¶5I have considered the augments advanced by the counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6There is no dispute about the fact that in suit for partition filed by respondent No.4 preliminary decree was passed on

17.12.2015 and the revision filed against the order dated

17.12.2015 has been allowed vide order dated 20.01.2023 and matter has been remanded back before the trial Court to decide the suit for partition afresh in accordance with law.

¶7In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the revisional order dated 20.1.2023 will be relevant, which is as under: "

उभयपकककववददनअधधवकदगणददरदपसतत तकररपरववचदरकरनकएरवपतदवललपर

उपलबधअवभलकखखककअवललकनसकयहसपषहहवकववपकलददरदअधधनसथनयदयदलयकक

समकधदरद-176

उतरपदकशजममददरलववनदशएरवभभवमवयवसथदअधधवनयमककअनतगरत

वददपसतत वकएजदनकपरअधलनसथनयदयदलयददरदपभदववतपककदरखकलसभवचतवकयद

गयदतथदलकखपदलसककतरदरफदरटपसतत करनकककअपकदककगयल।पतदवललपरउपलबध

अवभलकखखककअवललकनसकवनगरदनलकतदरककइसकथनककपतवषहलतलहहवकअधलनसथ

नयदयदलयककसमकवददल/

ववपकलददरदसवरयकहदगयदथदवकखदतदसरखयद-817

ममवददलकद ¼

अरशतथदपवतवददलसरखयद-3(वनगरदनलकतदर)

कद¼

अरशहह,

परनततअधलनसथनयदयदलय

ददरदखदतदसरखयद-817

ककसमपभणरभभवमपवतवददलसरखयद-4-8

ककपकममघलवषतकरदलगयल

हह।यदवपवनगरदनलसतरपरऐसदकलईसदकयनहमरपसतत वकयदगयदहह,

परनततअधलनसथ

नयदयदलयककसतरपरइसतथयकदभलपरलकणनयदयवहतममआवशयकहहवककयदपशनगत

आदकशपदररतकरनकककपभवरपवतवददलसरखयद-1, 14,15,18,19,20 व22

कदवनधनहलगयद थद?

औरउनककउतरदधधकदररयखकलपवतसथदवपतकरदएवगहरपशनगतआदकशपदररतवकयद गयद?

पतदवललपरउपलबधअवभलकखखसकयहभलपमदवणतहहवककतरदरफदरटपसततकतदर

लकखपदलकलनयदयदलयममआहहतकरआखयदककपतवषनहमकरदयलगयलहह,

अतएवउक

आखयदककआधदरपरपदररतआदकशववधधसरगतनहलकहदजदसकतद।तदनतसदरअधलनसथ

नयदयदलयददरदपदररतआदकशवदनदरक-17.12.2015

ककववरदपसतत वनगरदनलसवलकदर

वकएजदनकयलगयहह।

उपरलकदनतसदरवनगरदनलसवलकदरककजदतलहह,

अधलनसथनयदयदलयददरदपदररतआदकश

वदनदरक-17.12.2015

वनरसतवकयदजदतदहह,

तथदपतदवललइसवनदरशकक सदथ

पतयदववतरतककजदतलहहउपरलकवववकचनदककआललकममउभयपककलसतनवदईकदसमतवचत

अवसरपददनकरनकएरवआपधतयखकदवनरदकरणकरनकककउपरदनतपतननववधधसरगतआदकश

पदररतवकयदजदए।आदकशककपमदवणतपवतधलवपककसदथअधलनसथनयदयदलयककपतदवलल

वदपसभकजलजदएएरवआवशयककदयरवदहलककपशचदतइसनयदयदलयककपतदवललददधखल

दफतरककजदए। वदनदरक-20.01.2023 (

पतषपरदजधसरह)

अपरआयतक(नयदवयक)

पयदगरदजमणडल, पयदगरदज।

यहआदकशआजवदनदरक-20.01.2023

कलखतलकनयदयदलयममहसतदकररत,

वदनदरकएरव

उदलवषतवकयदगयद। (

पतषपरदजधसरह)

अपरआयतक(नयदवयक)

पयदगरदजमणडल, पयदगरदज।"

¶8Finding of fact recorded by the revisional court reveals that order dated 17.12.2005 has been passed by Sub Divisional Officer, karchhana, Parayagraj without substituting the legal heirs of deceased parties as well as without considering the mandatory provision of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and rules framed thereunder with respect to preparation/confirmation of the kurras as such revisional court has rightly set aside the order of trial court dated

17.12.2005 and remanded the matter before trial court for decision afresh.

¶9Considering the finding of fact recorded by the revisional court while allowing the revisions filed by petitioner's father, writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner cannot be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶10However, the Sub Divisional Officer shall decide the suit in accordance with law expeditiously after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 PS* High Court of Judicature at Allahabad