Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Honourable Judges: Dr. B. S. Chauhan and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ.
SATYA NARAIN KAPOOR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 32605 Of 1991
Decided On : 03/21/2007
Chequered History - Property Dispute - Government Orders - Conversion of Nazul Land - Induction of Petitioner - Validity of Orders - Non-Maintainability of Petition - Non-Eligibility for Relief - Non-Joinder of Necessary Party
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property dispute arising from the original allotment of a shop to Smt. Wahidun Bibi, who later inducted the petitioner into the shop. After her death, multiple parties filed petitions related to the property, leading to the examination of the validity of Government Orders providing for the conversion of nazul land into freehold.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's induction into the shop was in violation of Government Orders, rendering the petitioner ineligible for relief. The court also held that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the conversion of the shop from nazul land to freehold. Additionally, the court dismissed the petition due to the non-joinder of a necessary party, Smt. Rafiqunnisa.
Issues: The prime issues were the petitioner's right to challenge the order, eligibility for conversion of the shop, and the non-joinder of a necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's violation of Government Orders, lack of eligibility for relief, and the non-joinder of a necessary party, which rendered the petition non-maintainable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed due to the petitioner's ineligibility for relief and the non-joinder of a necessary party.
( 1 ) THIS case has a chequered history, as it has earlier been decided by this court and the Honble Supreme Court has set-aside the said judgment and order and remanded the case for deciding a fresh. This petition has been filed for seeking the relief of quashing the order dated 31/10/1991 passed by the A. D. M. (Nazul), Allahabad to put the property in dispute for auction for the purpose of allotment rejecting the application of the petitioner for allotment on the ground of his continuous possession, as the original lessee has violated the terms of the lease inducting the petitioner illegally.
( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the shop in dispute was originally allotted to Smt. Wahidun Bibi (Now deceased) widow of late Sri Abdul Aziz by Nazul Department Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad. In 1973 she inducted the petitioner in the said shop to meet her expenses and since then the petitioner claims to be in possession of the said shop. The said lessee Smt. Wahidun Bibi died on 27/12/1984 issueless. After her death one person by name Sri Riaz Ahmad (non party) applied for transfer of lease of the said shop in his favour claiming himself as an adopted son of late Wahidun Bibi. One Smt. Rafiqunnisa (non-party) also moved an application for seeking free hold rights in the said shop on the ground of certain Government Order dated 19/9/1996 passed in her favour. Accordingto the said order a direction was issued that Free Hold rights be created in her favour in the said shop. As her case was not considered, she filed writ Petition No. 20430 of 1992 claiming to be the only heir of Smt. Wahidun Bibi, the original allottee seeking direction for creating the free hold rights in respect of the said shops and also to carry out the mutation in her favour. One Sri Mohammed Ali also filed Writ Petition No. 16325 of 1995 in respect of another Shop No. 195 wherein he claimed the rights under the will in his favour and also submitted that there was a partnership with Smt. Wahidun Bibi so he was entitled to continue in possession of the said shop. All the three writ petitions relate to the properties left by Smt. Wahidun Bibi. However, considering the controversy involved therein this Court suo motu extended its scope and examined the validity of the Government Orders providing for conversion of nazul land into free hold, though validity of any such Government Order had never been challenged by any of the petitioners. This Court disposed of all the three writ petitions by a common judgment in Satya Narain Kapoor Vs. State of U. P. and Ors, (1998) 1 AWC 1, and issued large number of directions, observing that the character of nazul land cannot be changed and free hold rights cannot be created out of nazul estate. Perpetual lease on nazul leases cannot be granted in favour of individuals etc. The said judgment was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court and in State of U. P. and anr. Vs. Satya Narain Kapoor (2004) 8 SCC 630, the Honble Supreme Court set-aside the said judgment and order observing that the Court could not travel beyond the pleadings and the validity of the Government Orders could not be examined without framing proper issue and giving notice to the State to the effect that the Court wanted to examine the validity of the said orders suo motu. The cases have been remanded to be decided de novo. None of the counsel appearing in this petition (which is being heard with a bunch of cases) has challenged the validity of the Government orders providing for such a conversion, nor any of them is willing to make any submission on such issues, thus the Court proceeds only on the pleadings taken in the petition and examine as to whether the relief sought by the petitioner herein can be granted.
( 3 ) SHRI Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised large number of issues and made grievance against Smt. Rafiqunnisa, in whose favour certain orders have been pas
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
