Uttarakhand High Court
Chaturvedi vs The Plaintiff on 6 April, 2021
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.735 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners.
The petitioners before this Court is the defendants in a suit, which has been instituted before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vikasnagar, Dehradun being Original Suit No.121 of 2016, "Smt. Anubhooti Chaturvedi Vs. Smt. Bharti Jijja and another". The plaintiff, therein, had sought a decree in the nature of partition in relation to the property, which has been appropriately described at foot of the plaint, constituting to be a land lying in Khata No.77 of Khasara No.197 Min having an area of 0.0010 Hectares, Khasara No.298 having an area of 0.0350 Hectares and Khasara No.299 having an area of 0.2550 Hectares i.e. an overall area of 0.2910 Hectares; situated in Village Bhagwanpur Jullo, Pargana Pachwadoon, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.
On the institution of the said suit, the defendant/petitioners, herein, had filed their written statement and has raised a plea with regards to the bar of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act") by raising a plea to the said effect in paragraph nos.23 and 25 of the written statement. The learned court of Additional District Judge, while deciding the Civil Appeal No.02 of 2019, "Smt. Anubhooti Chaturvedi Vs. Smt. Bharti Jijja & another", had remitted the issue to the Assistant Collector while exercising its powers under Section 331-A of the UPZA&LR Act, to answer the question, as to whether the user of the land in dispute happens to be agricultural or not, in the absence of there being a declaration being made under Section 143 of the UPZA&LR Act.
In fact the impugned order dated 23.01.2021, if it is scrutinized, it is nothing but a simplicitor order of remand, where the matter has been remitted to the court of Assistant Collector to answer an issue in exercise of its powers vested in him under Section 331-A of the Act.
I am of the view, that as far as the impugned order, which is under challenge is not at all prejudicial, to the interest of the defendant/petitioner, herein, but rather it is only instrumental for the court to be utilized by the court within the ambit of powers under Section 331-A of the Act, in order to answer the initial objection, which has been raised by the defendants, about a sustainability of the suit for partition before the civil court. In that eventuality, without venturing into the merits of this writ petition, I am of the view that exercise of powers under Section 331-A of the Act, is an exclusive prerogative of the court, which only facilitates to decide the question of jurisdiction raised by the defendants. Hence I am of the view that this is not a fit case, where the court should exercise its extraordinary supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.04.2021 NR/