Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Ram Zani And 4 Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And 82 Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 4123 OF 2023.
Decided On : 15-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Order on C.M. Substitution Application dated 05.01.2024
In compliance of the order dated 01.02.2024, true copy of the substitution application in respect to the petitioner No.5 is on record.
2. Office is directed to allot fresh number to the instant application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The instant application has been filed in respect to the petitioner No.5 with the prayer that her heirs are already on record as petitioner Nos.1 to 4.
5. The application is allowed.
6. Let the word deceased be mentioned against the name of petitioner No.5 and note be made that her heirs are already on record of the writ petition as petitioner No.1 to 4.
Order on Writ Petition
7. Heard Mr. S.M. A. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/5, 2/1, 5 and 6, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for gaon sabha and Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that second appeal filed at the instance of the petitioners arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is pending before the Board of Revenue being Second Appeal No.1511 of 2020(Ram Zani and others v. Amrit Singh and others). He further submitted that respondent No.5 filed a writ petition No.3063 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2022 directing the Board of Revenue to decide the second appeal within a period of two months from the date of production of the order before him. He further submitted that petitioners applied for recall of the order dated 17.11.2022 to the extent that Board of Revenue before deciding the second appeal, decide the application of the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and also record the findings about the sufficiency of service on other side. He further submitted that respondents have not filed copy of the order dated 17.11.2022 before Board of Revenue immediately after passing of the order date 17.11.2022. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 modified the earlier order dated 17.11.2022. He further submitted that petitioners have filed the supplementary affidavit before the Board of Revenue annexing the copy of the order dated 17.11.2022, copy of the recall application dated 12.02.2023 as well as copy of the order dated 11.08.2023 but Board of Revenue is not proceeding according to the modified order passed by this Court. He submitted that Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in proceeding under Section 229-B of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such the Board of Revenue should proceed according to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code as well as according to the order passed by this court on 11.08.2023. He further placed copy of the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue in order to demonstrate that Board of Revenue is not interested to decide the pending application for additional evidence filed on behalf of plaintiff-appellant rather he is only interested to decide the appeal in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Board of Revenue be set aside and Board of Revenue be directed to proceed according to the order passed by this Court dated 11.08.2023. He further submitted that second appeal has been admitted on 14.12.2020 and substantial questions of law have been framed in the second appeal
9. On the other hand, Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that second appeal filed by the petitioners is pending before the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue is proceeding to decide the second appeal in view of the order passed by this Court to decide the second appeal expeditiously. He submitted that pending application in appeal shall be decided by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law. He submitted that from perusal of the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 it c
The Board of Revenue must resolve pending applications before proceeding with appeals, ensuring all parties are properly notified.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and not denying p....
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, affirming that delays in restoration applications can be dismissed on grounds of limitati....
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair hearing before making decisions that affect parties' rights, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
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
