Virendra Singh v. Bachoo) wherein an interim order has been granted on
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79375-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15114 of 2025 Petitioner :- Virendra Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Yadav,Preete Chaudhary,Vineet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Decision
2. The writ petition seeks the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to restore the Plot No. 2498 Minjumla of Area 0.413 hectares and restore the status quo ante as existed when interim order dated 30.05.2022 was passed in Original Suit No. 534 of 2022." 3. The petitioner claims to be owner of plot No. 2498 Minjumla area 0.413 hectares situated in Village- Baat, Tehsil and District Mathura which is alleged to have been settled with one Charan Singh under Section 122-B(4-F) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Charan Singh belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that this settlement was passed on the basis of the report of the then Lekhpal dated 11.06.1997, forwarded to the Revenue Inspector on 13.06.1997 and the Tehsildar on the same day whereupon the name of Charan Singh was ordered to be recorded. Thereafter, Charan Singh sold the land to one Gopal Singh who has also stated to have been mutated. Gopal Singh, in turn, executed two sale deeds; one in favour of Dharam Pal S/o Jamuna Prasad and another in favour of Dharamveer S/o Kehri. Dharam Pal is stated to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and another in favour of one Om Prakash. Om Prakash, in turn, sold his share to the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, the entire 0.328 hectares of plot is claimed by the petitioner as its bhumidhar with transferable rights. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that Charan Singh, in whose favour the land has been settled in accordance with the provisions of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, executed an agreement to sale of the said land in favour of one Bachoo and the sale deed was not executed. A suit for specific performance was filed and decreed which decree was put to execution. 6. In the execution case, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 was filed by the petitioner, giving rise to Misc. Case No. 8 of 2023 (Virendra Singh v. Bachoo) wherein an interim order has been granted on 05.01.2023. 7. Apart from the above, the petitioners are alleged to have filed a Suit No. 86 of 2004 and obtained an ex parte decree to the effect that the plaintiffs may not be dispossessed illegally from the land in suit. 8. Additionally, it has been averred that the petitioners have filed Original Suit No. 534 of 2022 against the Nagar Nigam, Mathura- Vrindavan in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mathura on 30.05.2022 along with an application for interim injunction under order 39 Rule 1/2 CPC. On this interim injunction application, an order of status quo is stated to have been passed on 30.05.2022. 9. It has also been averred that a written statement was filed by the Nagar Nigam on 03.08.2022 denying the title of the petitioners. 10. It is submitted that despite the interim order of status quo which was in the knowledge of the Nagar Nigam, the boundary wall erected by the petitioner, has been demolished without any notice of information to them. 11. Thus, the petitioner alleges illegal dispossession and therefore, this writ petition seeking a direction for restoration of the status quo ante. 12. From the facts noticed above, the first glaring fact which emerges is that the land in question appears to have been settled in favour of Charan Singh giving him the benefit of sub-section 4-F of Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, on mere reports. There does not to be any proceeding drawn against Charan Singh for his eviction under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, wherein alone, such declaration of his title, if any, could have been granted. 13. In the afore-noted circumstances, the revenue entry in favour of Charan Singh recording him as a bhumidhar with transferable rights appears to be under a cloud. 14. However, this issue does not require adjudication in this writ petition. The prayer in this petition is only for restoration consequent to an order of status quo granted in favour of the petitioner, which is alleged to have been violated by the respondent No.3. 15. In case, an interim injunction granted on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been violated, the remedy lies by means of the proceedings under Order 39(2)(a) of the CPC before the Court which had granted the interim order. For this reason alone, this petition cannot be held to be maintainable. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himanchal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508. 17. We have perused the order and find that it is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the judgment cited, though a case of illegal dispossession existed, however, no suit had been filed by the appellants before the Court nor was there any interim order operating in their favour which was allegedly violated. In this factual background, no benefit can accrue to the petitioners on the basis of judgment cited. 18. At this juncture, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the writ petition has been filed as the Court which granted the interim injunction is vacant. 19. This Court is not prepared to take the submission into account because no such averment has been made in the writ petition. Even if it is assumed that this submission is correct, nothing prevents the petitioner from approaching the District Judge for the matter being assigned to a non-vacant Court. No such application appears to have been filed by the petitioner. 20. Accordingly and in view of the above, since the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy available to him, no case for interference is made out. 21. The petition is misconceived and is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad