Allahabad High Court
Kripa Shanker Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 10 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36161-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4214 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Dwivedi,Baljeet Singh,Snehil Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief :-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, specifically respondent no.3 to register/entertain the execution application for execution of order dated 29.1.2024 passed in Case No.T 202310460513116: Kripa Shanker Pandey Vs. Susheela Devi @ Sheelu Prakash, passed by the respondent no.3."
3. It is claimed that an order of ejectment of respondent No.4 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006"). When an application for execution on the same was given under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has declined to register the execution application which is statutorily obliged to him.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that there is no difficulty in registering the execution application but certain facts need to be pointed out. Firstly, an application under Section 24 of Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was rejected and this fact was not disclosed in the proceedings under Section 134 of Code, 2006. Moreover, he says that respondent No.4 is recorded tenure holder of Gata No.381 sa ka which is a minjumla gata. Proceedings under Section 116 of Code, 2006 for division of the holding is pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned at the behest of the petitioner but this fact was also not disclosed in the proceedings under Section 134 of Code, 2006 and 29.05.2024 is the date fixed in the proceedings under Section 116 of Code, 2006. Therefore, in these circumstances, the order dated 29.01.2024 has been obtained by concealment and misrepresentation of fact. An application for restoration of proceedings have been filed by the respondent No.4.
5. We ask learned counsel for the petitioner to kindly demonstrate that if the gata is minjumla and the respondent No.4 is also recorded in respect thereof then how an order of ejectment could be passed without there being any partition of the holding between co-tenure holder, he could not give any satisfactory reply. We say no more except that this is not a case where we should exercise our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Let the restoration application of the respondent No.4 which is said to be pending be disposed of at the earliest. The proceedings for partition be also disposed of at the earliest.
7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Shubhankar