BHAGAUTI PRASAD SHARMA AND 4 OTHERS v. State of UP AND 7 OTHERS
WRIC/22644/2024 · 2025-03-05
S Q H Rizvi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 75583 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 75583 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32081 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22644 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bhagauti Prasad Sharma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Paul,Brij Bhushan Paul Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Singh Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. Heard Shri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 3, Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Shri Krishna Kant Singh. The case of the petitioners is that the predecessors-in-interest, namely, Pooran Mal and Shri Brij Kishore, were tenure holders of Plot No. 789, area 1.192 hectares, and Plot No. 150, area 0.046 hectares of Khata No. 25, situated in Nagla Abhivasi, Pargana Gorai, Tehsil Iglas, district Aligarh. On 2.9.1957, Brij Kishore sold his entire share in the said land to Ram Hari and Kishori Shyam. Subsequently, Ram Hari filed a suit for the division of holding under Section 176 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Collector-Ist Class, Aligarh. The said case was registered as Suit No. 34 of 1967 (In Re- Ram Hari and others vs. Pooran and others). The Assistant Collector-Ist Class, Aligarh, vide order dated 10.7.1968, dismissed the said suit, and against the said order, an appeal bearing No. 321 of 1968 was filed, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, vide order dated 11.8.1969. A second appeal having No. 178 of 1968/69 was filed, which was also dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 9.7.1981. All the aforesaid three orders dated 10.7.1968, 11.8.1969, and 9.7.1981 were challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 9432 of 1981. As per the pleadings, the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.10.2022. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said writ petition is still lying dismissed as no application for recall has ever been filed.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the dismissal of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 9432 of 1981 (Ram Hari and others vs. Board of Revenue and others) on 11.10.2022, the petitioners filed an application dated 15.3.2023 before the Sub Divisional
Officer, Iglas, Aligarh, for deleting the names of Ram Hari and Kishori Shyam from the revenue records in respect of the disputed plots, but till date, it has not been decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Iglas, district Aligarh—respondent No. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 16.9.1968 has attained finality and the names of the petitioners are liable to be entered in the revenue records in place of the names of the opposite parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents has no objection. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice need not be issued to private opposite parties No. 4 to 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts as narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending, and as such, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Iglas, District Aligarh—respondent No. 2, within a period of one month from the date of this order and if an application as aforesaid is filed within the stipulated period of one month, the Sub Divisional Officer/respondent no.2 shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
It is further provided that the respondent no.2 shall make every endeavor to decide the aforesaid matter within a maximum period of three months from the date of filing of the aforesaid application along with the certified copy of this order before him. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Sumaira Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad