Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1307 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000095 of 2003 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar And 4 Ors. Respondent :- Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur And 6 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Mehrotra,Awanish Kumar Upadhyay,I.D.Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Singh,Anil Kumar Pandey,Avinash Singh Vishen,Mukesh Kumar Sharma,S.C. Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. I.A. No. 27 of 2024 Application has been filed seeking recall of order dated 02.02.2024 whereby the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application is within time and although objections thereto have been filed but cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sufficient and therefore order dated 02.02.2024 is recalled restoring the petition to its original number. Order on Memo of Petition 1. This petition has been restored to its original number vide order passed today on I.A. No. 27 of 2024. 2. Learned counsel for the parties give consent that the matter may be heard and adjudicated today itself since it pertains to year 2003. In view of such consent, the matter is being adjudicated upon today itself. 3. Heard Mr. I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3. Opposite party no.4/1 is reported to have passed away during pendency of proceedings and his legal representatives are on record as opposite parties 4/2 and 4/3. Mr. A. K. Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 4/2 and Mr. Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf opposite party no.4/3. 4. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 26.09.2000 and 04.12.2002 whereby order pertaining to sanction of map of property concerned was passed and Appeal thereagainst preferred by petitioner has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the parties admit that the orders impugned have been passed in proceedings pertaining to sanction of map under the relevant Act. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid proceedings are merely summary in nature but by means of impugned order dated 26.09.2000, a finding with regard to rights and title of parties over the property in question has been indicated in the order itself. It is submitted that aforesaid finding is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of authority concerned. 7. Learned counsel for opposite parties admit the fact that the orders impugned have been passed in proceedings pertaining to sanction of map. It has been submitted that finding said to have been recorded pertaining to rights and title of the parties is in fact only an answer recorded by authority to the objections raised by petitioners themselves. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.4/3 submits that during course of proceedings when the petition stood dismissed for want of prosecution, the property in question has subsequently been sold by means of sale deed dated 06.07.2024, a copy of which has been appended to objections filed to recall application. It is submitted that subsequently a fresh map has also been sanctioned pertaining to the property in question and therefore the petition even otherwise has become infructuous. 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted, that proceedings arise out of sanction of map. Admittedly, the aforesaid proceedings are summary in nature and do not grant any competence upon authority concerned to record any finding with regard to rights and title of parties over the immovable property. 10. From perusal of impugned orders, it also appears that aforesaid finding has been recorded only for the purposes of sanction of map. 11. In view of aforesaid, it is quite evident that the finding pertaining to rights and title of parties as recorded in the impugned order was only for the purposes of sanction of map and clearly cannot be held to be a declaration of rights and title of parties over the the property in question, which may be adjudicated upon by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 12. In view of aforesaid finding recorded by this Court, there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere with orders impugned. 13. the petition however is disposed of in terms of the liberty so granted. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench