HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.S.Sinha, O.P.Jain
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 12 September 1997
CMW. P, No. 2297 of 1991
U. P. URBAN AREAS ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1956 - SECTION 6, 82 - REVISION - AVAILABILITY OF STATUTORY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - PETITIONER GUILTY OF MISLEADING THE COURT AND SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 6 of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, alleging lack of knowledge of the proceedings. However, the respondents claimed that the petitioner had full knowledge and that the final order had already been passed before the petition was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was guilty of misleading the court and suppressing material facts, as the proceedings had already concluded before the interim order was granted. Additionally, the court noted the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner misled the court and suppressed material facts? 2. Whether there was an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's misconduct in misleading the court and suppressing material facts warranted dismissal of the petition. Furthermore, the existence of a statutory alternative remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue precluded the petitioner from directly challenging the order before the court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order staying the proceedings was discharged.
Heard Shri Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri O. P. Singh, learned Stand ing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri S. D. N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Raja Mahendra Ripudaman Singh, seeking imp leading as respondent No. 6.
2. The petitioner was served notice under Section 6 of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (U. P. Act No. 9 of 1957), hereinafter called the Act. A copy of the notice is Annexure-8 to the petition. By this notice the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Demarcation Officer on 30th November, 1990 and file written objection, if there be any, in respect of proposed correction of alleged clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the demarcation proceedings.
3. Instead of appearing before the Demarcation Officer, petitioner rushed to this Court and file instant writ petition on 29th January, 1991 which received con sideration of the Court on 30th January, 1991. After granting time to the learned Standing Counsel for filing counter-af fidavit and to the petitioner for filing rejoinder-affidavit, court stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice.
4. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, sworn by Shri Shivendra Kumar Singh, was filed on 3rd May, 1991, after serving copy thereof on one Shri S. Kumar, clerk to Sri Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, as is evident from the endorsement on the stay vacation application along with which counter-af fidavit was filed. In paragraph-26 of this counter- affidavit, while replying to the averments of paragraph-46 of the writ petition regarding lack of knowledge of the proceedings, it is stated that: -
"the petitioner has full knowledge of the proceedings. His brother Shri Kailash Chand filed objection in the matter. The petitioner instead of filing objection obtained copy of the notice and then filed this writ petition simply to delay the matter and the final orders under Section 6 of the Act have already been passed on 28-1-91 by the Demarcation Officer/s. D. O. Agra and the matter has been referred to the Demarcation Commissioner. "
Despite lapse of an interminable period of more than six years no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to controvert the above averments. Thus, the averments have to be accepted as correct.
5. From the undisputed averments noticed above the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court and suppression of material facts, specially with regard to the fact that on the date when the Court passed the interim order staying the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice there was nothing to be stayed. The proceedings had come to an end on passing of the order dated 28-1-1991 by the Demarcation Officer/s. D. O. , Agra. Thus, petitioner, clear ly, obtained the interim order by mislead ing the Court and by suppression of material facts about passing of the final order in the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice. Therefore, the petitioner has incurred the liability of having his petition dismissed on this ground alone.
6. Apart from the fact that the peti tion is liable to be dismissed on account of misconduct of the petitioner which is very relevant in the proceedings before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, the petition is liable to be dismissed on yet another ground, namely, existence and availability of statutory al ternative remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue. Section 82 of the Act provides as follows: -
"82. Suits, applications and proceedings.- The provisions of Sections 331, (331-A), and 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall apply in relation to suits, applications or proceedings under this Act, as they apply in relation to suits, applica tions or proceedings under the said
Act, but the State Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, make such adaptation, modifica
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.