Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17587 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000326 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ram Dal And Others Respondent :- The Special Judge E.C. Act Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Krishna Sinha,Vijay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar,Jai Prakash Mishra,Sudhanshu Chauhan Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents to contest the writ petition despite the fact that the notices were issued and Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.4 to 6. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by Special A.D.J.(E.C. Act), District Gonda whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners bearing Revision No.239 of 2012 has been dismissed and the order dated 16.8.2012 passed by the trial court whereby the suit filed by the petitioners which came to be rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction, has been affirmed. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that property in question was duly recorded in the name of 'Dharmakarya Nidhi', a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. Some parts of its property which is the subject matter of the dispute was put to public auction wherein the father of the petitioner namely Gaya Prasad had made a bid in the said auction and being the highest bidder, the auction was confirmed in his favour and since 1969, the father of the petitioner namely Gaya Prasad remained in possession of the said property as its owner. 5. It is also urged that the nature of the property is a grove land. With passage of time, the petitioner had made certain improvements and some part of the land was also being utilized for residential purposes as well as for tethering cattle and domestic animals. It is further urged that the private respondent no.3 society had executed a sale deed and sold the land to the private respondents. 6. This sale deed dated 24.12.2010 came to be challenged by the petitioners by filing a suit for cancellation of the sale deed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda registered as R.S.No.224 of 2011. A copy of the plaint has been placed on record and it is stated that the name of the petitioner was not recorded in the revenue records, the petitioners had filed a suit before the revenue court under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. 7. It was further submitted that the said declaratory suit came to be dismissed on 26.8.2010 by the revenue court. Since the society had executed a sale deed and the suit of the petitioners for declaration of his rights by the revenue court was dismissed, hence, in this background the petitioners had instituted proceedings before the civil court seeking a decree of cancellation of the sale deed. Moreover, the petitioners had also preferred a revision against the order dated 26.8.2010 whereby the revenue court had dismissed the suit of the petitioner. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that his revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to be contested on merits before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. However, this order came to be passed sometimes in the year 2013-2014 and the counsel for the petitioner could not give any clear date regarding the same. 9. It is further urged that while the revision preferred by the petitioner was engaging the attention of the revenue authorities, it is in this backdrop that the suit of the petitioner filed before the civil court came to be dismissed as the private respondents while filing their written statements had raised an issue of maintainability of the suit. As per the private respondents, the suit was barred in terms of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The trial court taking note of the facts, by means of the order dated 16.8.2012, decided the preliminary issue no.3 and held that the suit before the civil court was barred as the property in question was agricultural in nature and admittedly the name of the petitioners or their erstwhile predecessor i.e. Gaya Prasad was not recorded and as such the suit was barred by Section 331 of the Act of 1950. 10. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred a civil revision under Section 115 C.P.C. which was registered as Civil Revision No.239 of 2012 and by means of the order dated 13.12.2012 the revision has also been dismissed echoing the same sentiments as expressed by the trial court, while deciding issue no.3. 11. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court assailing the two orders and it has been submitted that once the petitioner had approached the revenue court and their suit was dismissed thereafter he preferred the civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed and that too has been dismissed on the ground that the property is agricultural and the petitioner is better advised to approach the revenue court. It is submitted that the petitioner is faced with a diabolical situation inasmuch as the first step to invoke the jurisdiction of the revenue court was rejected and then the petitioner appeared before the civil court and his civil suit has also been dismissed and in this way, the petitioners has been rendered remediless. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and apparently deserve to be set aside. 13. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the material on record. 14. Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioners that his father Gaya Prasad had purchased the property in question in a public auction held somewhere in the year 1969. It is also admitted case of the petitioners that the name of his father was never recorded and only in the year 2007 that the present petitioners had instituted a suit seeking declaration of their title before the appropriate revenue court which came to be dismissed on 26.8.2010. The order of dismissal has not been brought on record before the court. It is also not disputed that the petitioners had preferred a revision against the order dated 26.8.2010 before the revenue authorities which came to be allowed sometime in the year 2013- 2014 and the matter has been remanded before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to proceed in accordance with law and as per the submissions and the statements given by learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Tiwari the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is still engaging the attention of the appropriate revenue court. Though the order of revision and pendency of the suit and its status also not been brought on record of the petition. 15. Once the aforesaid facts are admitted as a necessary corollary, it is clear that the name of the petitioner or prior to him his predecessor was not recorded in the revenue record and unless and until the petitioner sought a declaration from the revenue court, his right to assail the sale deed seeking cancellation before the civil court may not have fructified (See Kamla Prasad & Ors vs Sri Krishna Kant Pathak & Ors : 2007 (4) SCC 213). 16. As far as the right of the petitioners is concerned, it is not disputed by them that the land in question came and remained in the name of the private respondent no.4 society who had executed the sale deed which is sought to be challenged by the petitioners. Whether the petitioner has a right to challenge the sale deed in absence of his name been recorded in the revenue records, this involves a question of title and requires declaration of right relating to land which admittedly is a grove land, the jurisdiction would lie before the revenue court. To that extent, the decision on issue no.3 by the trial court as well as the revisional court permitting the petitioner to approach the revenue court and holding that the suit for cancellation was not maintainable in light of Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 cannot be faulted. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error in the two orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court. Thus, the petition is misconceived and is dismissed. 18. However, it is made clear that since the declaratory suit of the petitioner is pending before the appropriate revenue court wherein some orders have been passed, which as per the learned counsel for the petitioner has been assailed in Writ-C No.11641 of 2023 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 22.12.2022 had issued notices, this order may not come in the way of either of the parties prosecuting the aforesaid Writ -C No.11641 of 2023. All the pleas and merits are left open to be considered and decided by the appropriate court. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench