Allahabad High Court
Harindra And 2 Others vs Commissioner Azamgarh Division And 9 ... on 18 February, 2020
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5861 of 2020 Petitioner :- Harindra And 2 Others Respondent :- Commissioner Azamgarh Division And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Rakesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5920 of 2020 Petitioner :- Harindra And 2 Others Respondent :- Commissioner Azamgarh, Division Azamgarh And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Prasad,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai,Govind Krishna Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions.
As both the writ petitions arise from the same cause of action and related to orders passed under Section 123(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act, 1950) relating to the same plot i.e. Plot No.518 and the house constructed on the same, therefore, the writ petition have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
It appears from the records that the total area of Plot No.518 is 0.246 Hectares. A report was submitted by the Lekhpal that on 0.024 Hectares of Plot No.518, two different houses were constructed by Mahaveer and his sons who were residing in the same village and are entitled to the benefit of Section 123(1) of the Act, 1950. Mahaveer and his sons are respondents in the present writ petitions. The said report has been accepted by the revenue authorities and the consequential revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Azamgarh Division-Azamgarh. The orders granting benefit of Section 123(1) of the Act, 1950 and directing that the plot be recorded as 'abadi' 6(2) having been settled in favour of the respondents as well as the order dismissing the revision of the petitioners has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the houses were constructed from the joint family fund and form joint family property of the petitioners and the respondents.
It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the plots and the house could not have been settled only in favour of the respondents granting them benefit of Section 123(1) of the Act, 1950 and should have been settled jointly in favour of the petitioners and the respondents.
The contention of the petitioners relates to the title over the disputed plots and the constructions made over the same and proceedings under Section 123(1) of the Act do not decide the title of the parties or any inter se dispute between different claimants regarding the houses existing on the plot. The petitioners may institute appropriate proceedings for claiming their rights over the house existing on Plot No.518 and it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Jyotsana