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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.L. Pandey, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. K.C. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to minjumla plot No. 165 total area 4.932 hectare situated in Village-Chakghambira, Pargana-Sakteshgarh, Tehsil-Chunar, District-Mirzapur. Petitioner purchased 0.759 hectare of plot No. 165M on 1.8.1998 through registered sale-deed executed by recorded tenure holder Gyan Singh and Awadh Narayan accordingly name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue records. Respondent No.4 has also purchased 0.7600 hectare area of plot No. 165M through registered sale-deed executed on 3.3.2017 by Mohammad Abdul Tahir as well as 0.5060 hectare area of plot No. 165 M through registered sale-deed executed on 4.3.2017 by Mangla Giri. Out of total area 4.932 hectare of plot No. 165 M 2.5290 hectare is reserved for forest department and 0.1780 hectare is reserved for rural forestry, the remaining area i.e. 2.2248 hectare belongs to petitioner, respondent No.4 as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6, respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 13.10.2020 in respect to plot No. 165 M, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 2.2.2021 decided the application/ case under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondent No.4. Petitioner filed recall application to recall order dated 20.2.2021 which was allowed vide order dated 24.2.2021 setting aside the order dated 2.2.2021 and case under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code was restored to its original number.

3. Petitioner instituted a civil Suit No. 79 of 2021 for permanent prohibitory injunction impleading respondent No.4 as one of the defendant in which temporary injunction has been granted by Civil Court on 4.3.2021, the aforementioned civil suit is still pending between the parties before Civil Court.

4. On 30.6.2021, respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 30(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 for division/ partition of Minjumla No. 165. On 18.11.2021 Lekhpal submitted proposal/ scheme as provided under Rule 26(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016. On 8.12.2021 notices were issued to the co-sharer including the petitioners as provided under Rule 26(7) of U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016. Petitioner filed his objection as provided under Rule 26(7) of U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016. Petitioner received a notice dated 17.01.2022 from the Court of Collector as provided under Rule 26(10) of U.P. Revenue Code, Rules 2016. In pursuance of the notice dated 17.01.2022, petitioner filed an application before Collector placing his objections on record and sought two months further time to file detailed objection as well as opportunity of hearing. According to petitioner the date on petitioner’s application dated 27.1.2022 was interpolated to 31.1.2022, Collector passed an order directing the parties to file written submissions before 7.2.2022. Petitioner filed another application before Collector for further time to file objections in the matter due to covid pandemic. Collector vide order dated 11.2.2022 confirmed the partition proposal submitted by Tahsildar, hence this writ petition.

5. This Court on 14.3.2022 has passed the following interim order:-

“Heard Shri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Samsher Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 and Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.7.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Collector Mirzapur/respondent no. 2 in Suit No. 126 of 2022 (Shefali Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Others).

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order is in complete violation of Sub-rule 8 of Rule