Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Sharif vs State Of U.P. And 15 Others on 25 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2215
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31020 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Sharif Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Singh,Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Shri Raja Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 to 16. and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following material relief:
(i) "a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Basgaon, District Gorakhpur to decide the Case No. 76 of 2016 (Now Case No. RST/2879/2017) (Mohd. Sharif vs. Gram Panchayat Barparwa and others), under Section 116 U.P. Land Revenue Act, filed on 29.6.2016 as well as stay application dated 15.10.2018, pending before him expeditiously within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court;"
The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the plaintiff of suit No. 76 of 2016 (Now Case No. RST/287/2017) (Mohd. Sharif vs. Gram Panchayat Barparwa and others), under Section 116 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The proceedings of the said suit that was filed on 29.6.2016, are lingering on. It is his further grievance that the temporary injunction application made pending suit on 15.10.2018 seeking to restrain the defendants from raising constructions over suit of the property, also has not been disposed of or any interim injunction passed in order to preserve the subject matter of the property in such form as may lend itself to convenient partition, when final partition by metes and bounds is done. The Court has been taken through the order-sheet by Sri Raja Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the same shows that the proceedings of the suit are moving at a tardy pace, no order on the temporary injunction application also has been passed. It is true that in case, extensive constructions are indeed raised, about which, this Court does not express any opinion, there might be some difficulty in bringing about equitable partition. The Trial Court, therefore, ought to have passed appropriate orders on the temporary injunction application, whichever way it goes on merits. Likewise, trial of the suit also ought to be concluded early. Since, this Court does not propose to pass any orders determinative of rights of parties, no notice to private respondent nos. 4 to 16 is being issued. However, in case, the said respondents feel aggrieved by this order, it will be open to them to make an application in the decided matter.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Basgaon, District Gorakhpur where Suit No.76 of 2016 (Now Case No. RST/2879/2017) (Mohd. Sharif vs. Gram Panchayat Barparwa and others), under Section 116 pending, is ordered to decide the said suit within a period of eight months next in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Basgaon, Gorakhpur is further ordered to pass appropriate orders on the pending application for temporary injunction within the period of four weeks next in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion either on the merits of the caseor the merits of the temporary injunction. It will all be in the province of the Trial Court to decide case on the evidence on record and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid orders.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019/Neeraj