Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 4 July, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108795 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13930 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajkumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State/respondents and perused the records.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.12.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner-I in Revision No.00443/2020 filed on behalf of private respondent nos.6 to 9 whereby revision along with suit has been ordered to be abated owing to the notification under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'UPCH Act').
3. Facts culled out from the record are that present petitioner has filed a suit under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in brevity 'UPZA & LR Act') claiming his Bhumidhari rights, being a bhumidhar-with-nontransferable right over the property in question on the basis of benefit as enunciated under Section 122-B (4F) of UPZA & LR Act. Suit, being O.S. No.319/2014, filed on behalf of the present petitioner was decreed, vide judgement and decree dated 16.05.2015 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajapur, Chitrakoot, declaring him as a bhumidhar-with-nontransferable right under Class-II over the property in question. Having been aggrieved, private respondents have preferred revision dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure-5) and two other private persons, namely, Dinesh Chandra and Brijesh Chandra have preferred an appeal (Annexure-6) before the learned Commissioner. During pendency of the appeal/revision, village is notified under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, therefore on the advent of the consolidation operation, learned Additional Commissioner-I has passed the order impugned dated 30.12.2023 dismissing the appeal/revision as abated under Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the factum of promulgation of notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, rather petitioner has admitted the such notification during pendency of the appeal/revision.
5. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order impugned passed by Additional Commissioner-I. There is no apparent illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the present petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order impugned. Petitioner can avail remedy under the Consolidation of Holdings Act to get his rights and title declared. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Rama Kant