Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Amar Nath Arora – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojini Nagar Lko. And 8 Others – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1242 of 2022
Jurisdiction - Revenue Code - [U.P. Revenue Code, 2006] - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural laws under the Code of Civil Procedure while adjudicating suits under Sections 134 and 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, ensuring proper issue framing and evidence presentation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the consolidation of two suits under Sections 134 and 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, arguing that the proceedings were being conducted in haste and without following proper legal procedures, affecting their rights over agricultural plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not adhering to procedural requirements, particularly in framing issues and allowing evidence, which could lead to an unfair trial. It directed the respondent to follow the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: Whether the proceedings under Sections 134 and 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code were maintainable and whether the respondent was following the proper legal procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to suits under the U.P. Revenue Code, necessitating proper issue framing and adherence to procedural norms.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the respondent to adhere to procedural laws in ongoing suits.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Dr. L. P. Mishra alongwith Shri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R. P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Namit Sharma for the respondent no.4 and Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.
2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:-
"(a). To issue an order of suitable nature setting aside the impugned orders dated 05.03.2022, 28.03.2022, 11.04.2022, 16.04.2022 and 18.04.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow 04023/2020, opposite party no. computerized 1 in case case no. no. T202010460504023 Ms. Medhaj Techno Concept Versus State of U.P. and others under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (The copy of the impugned orders dated 05.03.2022, 28.03.2022, 11.04.2022, 16.04.2022 and 18.04.2022 annexed as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to 5 respectively to the petition).
(b) To issue an order of suitable nature cancelling and setting aside the plaints of case no. 04023/2020, computerized case no. T202010460504023 Ms. Medhaj Techno Concept Versus State of U.P. and others under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also case no. 17686 of 2018 Computerized no. T-20180460517686 Medhaj Techno Concept Versus Amarnath Arora and others under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (The copy of the plaint under Section 144 of the Revenue Code, 2006 and plaint under Section 134 of the Revenue Code, 2006 are ANNEXURE NO.7 and 6 to this petition).
(c) To issue an order of suitable nature setting aside the proceedings pending before the Opposite Party no. 1 in case no. 04023/2020, computerized case no. T202010460504023 Ms. Medhaj Techno Concept Versus State of U.P. and others under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also case 17686 of 2018 Computerized no. T 20180460517686 Medhaj Techno Concept Versus Amarnath Arora and others under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (The copy of the plaint under Section 144 of the Revenue Code, 2006 and plaint under Section 134 of the Revenue Code, 2006 L are ANNEXURE NO.7 and to this petition)
(d). To issue an order of suitable nature directing the opposite party no. 1 not to proceed with the proceedings of case no. 04023/2020, computerized case no. T202010460504023 Ms. Medhaj Techno Concept Versus State of U.P. and others under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as case no. 17686 of 2018 Computerized no. T 20180460517686 Medhaj Techno Concept Versus Amarnath Arora and others under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (The copy of the plaint under Section 144 of the Revenue Code, 2006 and plaint under Section 134 of the Revenue Code, 2006 are ANNEXURE NO.7 and 6 to this petition)"
3. Primarily, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a suit instituted under Sections 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, it pre supposes that a person who has retained possession of any part of land, forming part of the holding of a Bhumidhar, without the consent of such Bhumidhar and as such his possession would be illegal, which will subject him to eviction under the said provision. The suit of such nature can be filed by the Bhumidhar concerned.
4. It is urged that in contradistinction to the aforesaid provision, Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relates to a suit to be filed by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar regarding declaration of his rights. It is also pointed out that in both suits whether preferred under Section 134 or Section 144 of the Code of 2006, the State and the Gram Panchayat shall be a necessary party.
5. It has been urged that the respondent no.1 before whom two suits, one under Section 134 and the other under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 are pending and though both the suits are of different nature and character yet both have been consolidated to be heard together whic
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
