IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Parmeshwar - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda and Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 11517 OF 2023.
Decided On : 04-01-2024
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Shri Surya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel for State-opposite party nos.1 to 3, Shri Vikram Nath Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pankaj Gupta who has put in appearance on behalf of opp. party no.4 and Shri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for opp. party no.6.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following main relief :-
3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that undisputedly the petitioner being cosharer of Gata Nos. 489/1-03, 229/0-10, 234/0-17 (in short 'land in issue') situated at Village Udaypur Grant, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda, is having 1/3 share and in regard to land in issue a suit no. 19 of 2001 under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950') was instituted before opposite party no.2/Up-Ziladhikari, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda for partition and in the suit a preliminary decree was prepared in terms of the order dated 04.05.2005 and thereafter an application for appointment of Commission was preferred by petitioner on 01.04.2009 and the Lekhpal concerned prepared report dated 22.02.2010 i.e. a proposal of division of land in issue (Kurra Chittha and map) and the same was submitted on 11.08.2010 before the opposite party no.2 and this report dated 22.02.2010 was confirmed by opposite party no. 2 on 07.06.2017.
4. After the aforesaid, an application for restoration of case was moved by the opposite party no. 8-Narendar (alleged to be moved by the petitioner and opposite party no.8), which was not pressed as is evident from impugned order dated 25.08.2022 and is apart from the application dated 02.02.2022 preferred by the opposite party no. 8 (Annexure no. 8 to this petition) against which the petitioner preferred an objection dated 09.02.2022.
5. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner did not file an application for restoration of case/ recall of final order dated 07.06.2017 and nor did he file the objection to the report dated 22.02.2010 before passing the order dated 07.06.2017, whereby the opposite party no.2 confirmed the report dated 22.02.2010. However, the petitioner preferred an objection on 23.02.2022 against the report dated 22.02.2010.
6. After considering the aforesaid, the opposite party no.2 by the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 confirmed the final order dated 07.06.2017.
7. Challenging the order dated 07.06.2017 the petitioner filed a revision and by means of an appeal, the petitioner assailed the order dated 25.08.2022 and both these cases were decided by a common order dated 02.11.2023 (impugned order). Vide order dated 02.11.2023 the opposite party no. 1/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, modified the order dated 07.06.2017. As per this order, the petitioner would get the land for road over western side of the Gata No. 233.
8. It would be apt to indicate that against the order dated 02.11.2023 and praying other reliefs, the petitioner filed Writ-C No. 10581 of 2023 and the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 11.12.2023, which reads as under:-
A party's acceptance of a report without timely objection precludes later challenges, establishing principles of estoppel in land partition disputes.
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 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 reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land on the road should be divided amongst all the co-sharers in proportion to their share in the total land holding, as per the Haryana Land ....
The High Court confirmed rights established under a 1955 partition decree, emphasizing that the execution of civil court judgments must be respected without unauthorized administrative interference.
The Revenue Tribunal must ensure compliance with statutory requirements in mutation proceedings, retaining jurisdiction to review such orders despite disputes over title.
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.