Allahabad High Court
Ruby Jaiswal And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84309 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12399 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ruby Jaiswal And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Srivastava,Vikas Mani Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari,C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by District Magistrate in appeal No. 296/2023 under section 318 of Municipality Act, 1916, affirming the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by Executive Officer on the application moved by Anoop Jaiswal (husband of petitioner No.1) to correct the Municipal Assessment Register.
2. Record evince that Ram Niwas S/O Baijnath (respondent No.4) is recorded in the assessment register of Municipal Corporation over house no. 86, Ward No.10, Shastri Nagar, Nagar Palika Parishad Nautanwa, District- Maharajganj. Having been dissatisfied with the said entry, Anoop Jaiswal has filed application to record his name and the name of Dewansh (son of petitioner No.1 and Anoop Jaiswal) in place of Ram Niwas. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad has rejected the said application on the ground of pendency of a civil suit between the parties before the court competent. On an appeal being filed, same has been dismissed as well owing to pendency of the civil suit. Learned appellate authority has specifically observed that the house in question basically belongs to Kedarnath Srivastava S/o Darp Lal, who has allegedly executed two sale deeds; first dated 6.11.1974 in the name of Gena Devi W/o Baijnath and second, sale deed dated 13.6.1978 in favour of Ram Nivas S/o Baijnath, therefore, both the parties are at loggerheads with respect to the right and title over the property in question on the basis of their respective sale deeds.
3. The present petitioners are deriving their right and title from Gena Devi on the basis of registered will deed allegedly bequeathed by her. The appellate authority has clearly observed that Ram Niwas has filed an injunction suit No. 863 of 2017 (Ram Niwas Jaiswal Vs. Anoop Kumar Jaiswal) wherein interim order dated 31.10.2023 has been passed by the court competent to maintain status quo on spot. In paragraph No. 15 of the written statement filed by Anoop Jaiswal in original suit No. 863 of 2017, it is averred that Gena Devi has filed a suit being OS No. 818 of 2016 as well before the court competent for permanent injunction. Thus, it is manifested that with respect to the house in question, two civil suits are pending consideration before the civil court. Therefore, in this backdrop of the case, there is no justification to record the name of any particular person by deleting the name of a person, who is already recorded in the assessment register. The Executive Engineer as well as appellate authority have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of the civil suit.
4. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order passed by the authorities under the Municipalities Act, 1916. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India. There is nothing on record to show as to how the petitioners are prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing any miscarriage of justice to them, owing to the orders impugned.
5. As such, instant writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to the costs.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024 vinay