Jatin Khare v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Sri Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned standing counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3 are present.

Notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha / respondent no. 4 has been accepted by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut / respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 2595 of 2024 (Jatin Khare Vs. Jaiveer Singh & others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Sardhana, District Meerut / respondent no. 3 in RST Case No. 01527/2019 (Vinod Vs. Jaiveer Singh & others) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5 in respect of his share executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner. The said gift deed was registered at Bahi No. 12763 at pages 91 to 106 at serial no. 26678 on 12.11.2024. By means of the said gift deed which has never been challenged in any court of law, the petitioner has perfected his rights as the co-sharer in the property in Suit.

On the strength of the aforesaid gift deed, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer in the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The said application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 19.11.2024 on the ground that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the revenue record as such he cannot be allowed to be impleaded as necessary party in the said proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 that also came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the respective shares of the co-sharer have been determined, but no preliminary decree has been passed as yet, in such a situation if the petitioner being an interested person is impleaded as defendant in the said proceeding no prejudice shall be caused to the other co-sharers.

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned order. He asserted that since the name of the petitioner has not been recorded in the relevant revenue records, he cannot be allowed to be a party in the proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 returnable at an early date.

Steps for service of notice be taken within ten days.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this case immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Arif