IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Kalawati And 6 Others - Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue And 10 Others - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 1852 OF 2021.
Decided On : 08-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri. R.N. Tripathi assisted by Sri. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.- 9,10 & 11, Sri. Anshul Nigam, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed by the petitioners, claiming co-tenancy right along with defendants to the extent of 1/2 share as well as partition of the plots. The suit was registered as Suit No.T201702323055366 of 2017-18. The S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj/respondent no.3 issued notice to the defendants in the aforementioned suit. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement, denying the plaint allegations. Respondent no.3 framed issued in the aforementioned suit. During pendency of the aforementioned suit proceeding, an application under Section 212(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3, to transfer the suit proceeding from the court concerned to any other court which was registered as Case No.06884/2019 before the Chief Revenue Officer, Prayagraj. The Chief Revenue Officer has heard the transfer application and dismissed the same vide order dated 16.11.2019. Against the order dated 16.11.1999, defendant/respondent no.10 filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The aforementioned appeal was heard by the Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.1.2020. The petitioners filed Writ C No.755/2018 for mandamus for disposal of the pending injunction application in the aforementioned suit as defendants/respondents were creating 3rd party interest in respect to the plot in dispute. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.2.2018 with the direction to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the pending injunction application within a period of 3 months and direction was also issued that the pending suit shall also be disposed of expeditiously. The defendants/respondent No - 6/Smt. Ranno Devi has filed further transfer application against the Presiding Officer/S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj (Sri. Vinod Kumar Pandey) before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj on the ground that she will not get justice from the court concerned which was registered as Transfer Application No - 1031 of 2021. In the aforementioned transfer application, an objection has been filed at the instance of the petitioners that grounds mentioned in the transfer application is misconceived and the same has been filed in order to linger the proceeding of pending suit. Another transfer application was filed by respondent No - 10/Krishna Kant Patel before the Board of Revenue for transferring the proceeding of aforementioned suit which was registered as Transfer Application No - 1184 of 2021. Respondent no.1/Board of Revenue vide order dated 1.7.2021 decided the transfer application no.1031 and transferred the proceeding of the pending suit from the court of S.D.O., Karchhana, Prayagraj to the court of S.D.O., Sadar, Prayagraj. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 1.7.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in Transfer Application No.1031/2021.
3. This Court on 3.12.2021 directed the parties to exchange their respective affidavit and it was further ordered that no third-party-right shall be created over the property in dispute. The Court has further ordered that the pendency of the present writ petition will not amount to any stay of the proceeding before the trial court and the trial court is free to proceed with the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioners on 22.8.2017 which is still pending before the trial court. He further submitted that on the transfer application filed by defendant/respondent
Transfer applications must be based on genuine grounds; repeated applications causing undue delay in proceedings are unjustified.
The court determines that ongoing legal proceedings negate the need for interference in property mutation matters based on a Will-deed, emphasizing adherence to procedural integrity.
Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining interim orders during appeal proceedings and directing merits-based adjudication.
In partition suits, additional issues may be rejected if existing issues sufficiently address the involvement of the parties and the matter at hand.
Transfer applications require substantial evidence of bias; mere apprehension is insufficient for judicial intervention.
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 court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in legal proceedings, ruling that ex-parte orders and technical rejections of applications cannot deny substantive justice.
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver; appeals under the UP Revenue Code must follow the prescribed procedures, and jurisdictio....
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.