BHAGWAN BAKSH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND 7 OTHERS
WRIC/3130/2025 · 2025-04-10
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131332 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131332 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20354-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3130 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhagwan Baksh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakaltanama on behalf of opposite party nos.7 & 8 which is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. Sri Bharat Bhargav, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Colonelganj, District-Gonda has joined the proceedings telephonically. He says that after passing of final order dated 17.03.2025, the application was required to be submitted by the parties whereupon Kurra etc would be got prepared.
4. With respect, we do not agree with the statement of Sri Bhargav. This is not how a partition suit proceeds, but, we do not proceed any further as he says that he has restored the status quo order and whatever construction was being undertaken has been stopped. The partition proceedings shall now be completed as per law. The object of the status quo order is that the parties may not change the land use or nature of the land as it will adversely affect the ultimate partition. A preliminary decree only defines the shares of the parties and does not by itself partition the land in question by metes and bounds. This is done only after passing of the final decree. Now, that this status quo
order has been restored, the proceedings be concluded at the earliest but as per law at the earliest. Nothing survives for adjudication. These orders have been passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the pending partition suit. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.7 and 8 says that his clients are not undertaking any construction during pendency of the partition suit.
5. With these observations/ direction, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 10.4.2025/Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench