Malti Devi vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 2333

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Smt. Malti Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 6 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 2330 OF 2021.
Decided On : 12-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Adya Prasad Tewari
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Juned Alam, Sunil Kumar Singh

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 65, 66(1), and 67(5), 67(6) - Writ petition for mandamus regarding delivery of possession of land allotted to the petitioner - Court noted pending proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, affirming that relief cannot be granted during ongoing legal scrutiny - Clear that actual possession has not been established, thus no direction for delivery issued. (Paras 4, 13, 14)

(B) Statutory Proceedings - They are pivotal in determining entitlement to possession, ensuring that the final decision regarding the allotment and subsequent possession remain lawful. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed she had not received possession of land allotted to her in 2016, despite a civil suit being filed alleging obstruction by private respondents. The injunction had been granted preventing interference.

Findings of Court:
The claim for possession cannot be upheld while proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code are still active, pending the conclusion of appeals regarding dispossession.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to physical possession and the implications of ongoing statutory proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief hinges on the resolution of statutory appeals regarding dispossession and allotment validity, rendering any current demand for possession premature and unsupported.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims possession of property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. issues related to possession and dispossession. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments on legality of allotment and interim orders. (Para 10 , 11)
4. finality of dispossession order pending appeal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. conclusion and directions regarding statutory proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Shri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to 7.

3. This court on 15.03.2023 passed a detailed order which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Pursuant to the earlier order dated 8.2.2023, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

This writ petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganj to ensure the actual delivery of possession to the petitioner over plot no.1151M measuring area 0.012 hectare and 0.016 hectare allotted to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer for housing site and plantation situated at Village Chaumukha, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganj in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the time frame.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sub Divisional Officer to ensure that the private respondents may not put any obstacle in use an occupation of the petitioner over the land allotted to her by taking coercive measure against the private respondents in accordance with the provision contained under section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid property was allotted in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016, however, till today possession of the same has not been delivered to her.

A perusal of the supplementary affidavit filed today reveals that the petitioner has filed a civil suit being Original Suit No.153 of 2020, against the private respondents alleging that pursuant to the allotment made in her favour in the year 2016, a residential house has been constructed by her and, insofar as, the allotment in respect of the plantation is concerned, for the said purpose, the possession has also been delivered to her. Necessary averments in this regard have been made in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the plaint of the suit. The cause of action giving rise to file the suit has been alleged as interference being caused by the private respondents i.e. the defendants of the suit in the plaintiff's/petitioner's actual and physical possession.

This Court has also perused the injunction order dated 19.8.2020 whereby the Civil Judge concerned has restrained the private respondents/defendants in the suit from interfering in the petitioner's/plaintiff's possession and also from causing any damage to the trees as well as from dispossessing the petitioner and from interfering in the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as the possession of the housing site as well as plantation part is concerned, possession is with the petitioner, however, certain portion of the said Gata has been illegally encroached upon by the private respondents concerning which proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were launched by the Gaon-Sabha, which were decided, in which the order of dispossession was passed on 28.3.2022. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-SA2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 2.8.2022. Further contention is that the notice of demolition was also affixed on the cemented construction of the private respondents on 4.6.2022. Further contention of the petitioner is that despite applications moved by the peti