Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Daya Shankar and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Board pf Revenue and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 895 of 2022
Decided On : 30-09-2022
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Partition - Section 176 - Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 - Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a case for partition of a plot under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. After several legal proceedings, objections were raised against the kurra prepared by the Lekhpal, leading to a series of appeals and revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections to the kurra were not considered in accordance with the law. It held that the subsequent kurra was prepared in compliance with Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, and the earlier kurra was maintained illegally. The court set aside the impugned judgments and orders, remanding the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the objections.
Issues: Consideration of objections to the kurra, compliance with Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, legality of the judgments and orders
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to follow the principles outlined in Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 for the preparation of kurra. It held that the objections raised by the petitioners were not adequately considered, and the subsequent kurra was prepared in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The impugned judgments and orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the objections in accordance with Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8, Mr. S.K. Tiwari for respondent No. 4 and Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No. 4 filed a case under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for partition of plot No. 364 area 0.683 hectare. There was defect in the suit as such, suit was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh suit vide order dated 27.07.2012. A fresh Suit has been filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 4 on 20.11.2014 in which petitioners were plaintiff/defendants have filed their written statement and declined plaint allegations. Trial Court/Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilsi, Badaun considering the evidence on record dismissed the plaint suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016. Against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, passed by trial court plaintiff- respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Court of Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2017 allowed the suit, setting aside the judgment and decree of trial court dated 29.03.2016 and remanded the matter back before trial court with direction to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to both the parties. After remand, the trial court, registered the suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2018 passing preliminary decree in the suit. Trial Court after passing the preliminary decree in disputed plot No. 364 summoned the Lekhpal for filing kurra in the suit. Petitioners challenged the order of the trial court dated 10.09.2018 by way of Revision before the Revisional Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2021 on the ground that trial court has already passed final decree on 22.03.2021 as such Revision is not maintained against the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. The Lekhpal prepared the Kurra on 05.10.2018 and the same was filed before the trial court on 28.09.2018. Trial Court further invited objection of the parties to the kurra accordingly, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 filed their objections against the kurra on 22.10.2018 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 filed their objection against the kurra on 18.01.2018 and by their objection, they prayed that kurra dated 18.09.2018 and 05.10.2018 be rejected. Lekhpal was examined before the trial court. Trial Court heard the objection filed by the petitioners to the kurra and found that kurra has been wrongly prepared and submitted as such kurra submitted by the area Lekhpal was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2019 and the area Lekhpal was again directed for making proper spot inspect and prepared kurra in accordance with law as provided under the Act and Rules. Plaintiff-respondent No. 4 aggrieved with order dated 25.03.2019 filed a Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, but there was no interim order in the Revision, as such Area Lekhpal filed a fresh kurra before the trial court on 13.03.2020. After submission of fresh Kurra dated 13.03.2020 Additional Commissioner Bareilly, Division Bareilly without considering the material facts allow the Revision filed by contesting respondent vide order dated 24.02.2021 setting aside the order dated 25.03.2019 and sent the matter back before the trial court and proceed further according the Kurra dated 28.09.2018/5.10.2018. Petitioners challenged the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner through Revision before respondent No. 1 but no order has been passed in the Revision and trial court proceeded with the matter in pursuance of the order dated 24.02.2021 and passed final order/decree on 22.03.2021/31.03.2021. Petitioners challenged the order dated 10.09.2018/22.03.2021/31.03.2021 through Appeal before respondent No. 2 under section 207 of t
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 in the preparation of kurra, and the necessity to consid....
The court upheld the finality of the land partition decree, confirming that all procedural safeguards were adhered to in preparing and confirming the Kurra, thus denying the petitioners' claims again....
The preliminary decree under the U.P. Revenue Code is a final order determining the rights of parties, making it appealable despite being labeled interlocutory.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the extent of interference by Writ Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving concurrent findings of fact.
Jurisdiction in partition suits remains intact despite subsequent land acquisitions, and inherent powers under C.P.C. cannot override specific statutory provisions.
Compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice is crucial in partition proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016.
Point of law: It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to....
Point of Law : As it is seen that it is nobody’s case that suit in question is a suit coming within ambit of Order XX Rule 18(2) of Code and as such question of a preliminary decree does not arise at....
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
