A litigant divesting all interest in a property lacks the standing to continue litigation concerning that property.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh 'Pankaj', learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4, Shri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 to 7 and Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.8.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent no. 9 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.3.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, District Balrampur as well as the appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration- II, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda dated 20.11.2024 and order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue, wherein all the three orders the matter has been decided against the petitioner.

4. The facts in brief, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner had purchased the half of the land of Gata No. 280 Min. through a registered sale deed on 18.05.1991 from the recorded tenure holder, Prameshwari and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. The opposite parties no. 5 to 7 are the successor in interest of the recorded tenure holder and undoubtedly are owners of the remaining portion of Gata No. 280 and in the aforesaid circumstances, the suit for partition for half of the land was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, under Section 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. At the stage of preparation of Kura (share) objections were filed by the petitioner and a prayer was made to divide the land in such a manner that both the co-sharers have equal land of P.W.D. Road side, which is of higher value land. The Sub Divisional Magistrate decided the matter in favour of respondents no. 5 to 7 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. By means of order dated 17.3.2020 the petitioner thereafter, filed an application for recall of the order dated 17.3.2020, which was also rejected and thereafter filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, which was also rejected on 20.11.2024. A Second Appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, which has also been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 4.7.2025. All the aforesaid orders have been assailed in the present writ petition.

5. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not have any right or interest in the disputed property, in as much as, he has gifted 0.2160 hectare of land by means of a registered sale deed on 2.6.2021 and the remaining portion of the land i.e. 0.107 hectare by means of a sale deed on 19.7.2021. He submits that after divesting with the aforesaid portion of the land no further portion remains with the petitioner and accordingly he has no right to further litigate in the said matter after that he has divested himself in the said property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the objection made by the respondents, he does not firstly dispute the said fact that the entire portion of land stands divested by sale deed dated 19.7.2021 and gift deed dated 2.6.2021 but submits that despite the aforesaid fact, the petitioner still has right to pursue his legal remedies. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Deputy Director of Cosmopolitan , passed in Case Consolidation No. 47 of 2013. In the said judgment he has relied upon the judgment which was quoted therein in the case of Ram Pyare Verma Versus Third Additional District Judge, Faizabad , 2015 (128) RD 273 ; wherein he has held that impleadment of the purchaser who had bought the property during the p