Allahabad High Court
Urmila Devi vs Chief Revenue Officer, Amethi & Ors. on 3 November, 2020
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19003 of 2020 Petitioner :- Urmila Devi Respondent :- Chief Revenue Officer, Amethi & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the impugned orders dated 13.12.2019 and 12.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the property left behind by the maternal uncle of the petitioner, namely Ramphere, the private-respondents No.3 and 4 on the basis of a will said to have been executed by Ramphere, go their names muted. The record would reveal that the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of its order dated 12.03.2014 has confirmed the report regarding the aforesaid mutation entry.
The petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2014 preferred an application for recall of the said order, which has been dismissed by the order dated 13.12.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a suit is already pending in respect of the aforesaid property. Since, the petitioner also claims the right in the aforesaid property, on the basis of a registered will executed by Ramphere in favour of the petitioner.
The record indicates that the respondent No.1 while considering the application for recall has noticed that the aforesaid suit is pending and the fact that the petitioner did not lead any evidence on the basis of a will and as such the heirship in respect of the property left behind by Ramphere has been decided merely on the basis of the will in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4.
This Court does not find that there is any illegality in the order passed by the respondent No.1 especially in view of the fact that the petitioner herself did not lead evidence or contest the proceedings before the respondent No.1.
Be that as it may since the suit of the petitioner is already pending before the appropriate authority, hence, it would be open for the petitioner to get her rights adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. No error can be found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly disposed of.
It is also noticed that the stamp reporting section has reported that since the impugned order has been passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 48(3) of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, hence, the group, which has been assigned to the aforesaid writ petition is not as "Miscellaneous Single", it ought to have been treated as "Consolidation".
The aforesaid objection as raised by the Stamp Reporting Section appears to be correct.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to correct the group as mentioned in the writ petition during the course of the day and the office is also directed to re-assign the group and number if necessary thereafter consigned this petition to record.
Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Rakesh/-