High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri Kshemendra Shukla who has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents dispensed with.

3. With the consent of the parties the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the land situated on gata No.429 area 0.8450 hectare situated in Village- Neevi, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli which was recorded in the name of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It has further been stated that a suit for partition was filed by opposite party No.5 and in the said suit it was provided that one fourth share of the property may be declared in favour of all the heirs and accordingly the said suit was decided on 28.2.2014. After passing of the order dated 28.2.2014 opposite party No.5 has sold his share in the land situated at gata No.429 to the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed on 26.8.2019 and the name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue records on 24.9.2021. In the meanwhile, opposite party No.3 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside of the order dated 28.2.2014 which remained pending and during pendency of the said suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for being made a party to the said proceedings. By means of order dated 19.3.2025 the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareilly has rejected the suit on the ground that in the mutation proceedings the order in favour of the petitioner has been stayed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 27.2.2025 and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2025 he preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has also rejected the revision by means of order dated 4.7.2025.

6. In the present proceedings the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Officer as well as Board of Revenue.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, in the meanwhile, has submitted that the application for restoration preferred by opposite party No.3 on 29.4.2016 has been allowed on 6.6.2025 and the suit for partition has been restored and further the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2025 has preferred a revision on 8.7.2025 which is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. The said revision has been numbered as REB/2973/2025 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. Shrikant).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2015 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be set aside in as much as the the petitioner has purchased the entire share of opposite party No.5 and he has stepped into his shoes. He submits that once the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of opposite party No.5 then he deserves to be impleaded in place of opposite party No.5 in the partition suit and both the authorities below have committed manifest error in rejecting the said application. He further submits that merely on account of the fact that parallel proceedings under Section 34 of Revenue Code are pending consideration will not have any bearing effect on the rights of the petitioner in the suit for partition even though in the proceeding for mutation the Sub Divisional Magistrate has stayed the order of competent authority vide order dated 27.2.2025 would not effect the proceedings for partition of the said property. Accordingly, the prayer made for quashing the order dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025.

9. Sri Kshemendra Shukla appearing for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submits that once the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.6.2025 wherein the restoration application of opposite party No.3 has been allowed then all the application which have been decided in the said proceeding also stand challenged in the revision preferred by the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that a specific issue pertaining to validity of the order dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025 has already been taken by the petitioner in the revision and, therefore, for the same cause of action writ petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner raised in the revision is only to the effect that he was not made a party and he was illegally denied participation in the restoration application filed by the respondents on 29.4.2016 despite the fact that the he had stepped into the shoes of opposite party No.5 and it is main plank which is in the revisional proceedings and accordingly submits that on the same ground same grievance has been raised in the present writ petition wherein the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025 have been assailed.

10. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in the partition proceedings stood rejected by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 19.3.2025. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has purchased a share of opposite part No.5 through registered sale deed and merely on account of pendency of the mutation proceedings he has been denied participation in the partition suit.

11. These are the issues which would certainly be considered in the revision preferred by the petitioner. Considering that all the issues have been raised by the petitioner in the revision and it is only on this account that this Court feels constrained in entertaining the petition on behalf of the petitioner in as much as he would not be permitted to raise his grievance before all parallel authorities/courts.

12. There is no denial of the fact by the petitioner that all these issues raised in the present petition have been taken by him in the revision filed against the order dated 6.6.2025. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

13. With regard to the reply to the objection pertaining to maintainability of the present writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aspect pertaining to validity of the appellate order have been raised by him before the revisional authority and he has also taken ground pertaining to rejection of this application for impleadment but submits that the order of rejection of impleadment has already been upheld by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 4.7.2025 and accordingly in the present revision the Board of Revenue may consider the order dated 4.7.2025 to be binding upon them and may not interfere in the same and the revision preferred by the petitioner.

14. At this stage, Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that he would not have any objection in case the Board of Revenue decides the issue pertaining to impleadment of the petitioner ignoring the order dated 4.7.2025.

15. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, and specially considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed revision where all the grounds pertaining to validity of the order dated 6.6.2025 have been raised by him including the order dated 19.3.2025, the petition is relegated to his remedy already availed by him by filing revision and the revisional authority is directed to consider and decide the said revision with expedition in accordance with law. It is made clear that they will also consider and decide the aspect pertaining to impleadment of the petitioner and while considering the said submissions of the petitioner they shall not be bound by their previous order dated 4.7.2025.

16. The parties have undertaken to cooperate in the said proceedings before the court.

17. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri Kshemendra Shukla who has put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents dispensed with.

3. With the consent of the parties the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the land situated on gata No.429 area 0.8450 hectare situated in Village- Neevi, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareli which was recorded in the name of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It has further been stated that a suit for partition was filed by opposite party No.5 and in the said suit it was provided that one fourth share of the property may be declared in favour of all the heirs and accordingly the said suit was decided on 28.2.2014. After passing of the order dated 28.2.2014 opposite party No.5 has sold his share in the land situated at gata No.429 to the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed on 26.8.2019 and the name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue records on 24.9.2021. In the meanwhile, opposite party No.3 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside of the order dated 28.2.2014 which remained pending and during pendency of the said suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for being made a party to the said proceedings. By means of order dated 19.3.2025 the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Lalganj, District Raebareilly has rejected the suit on the ground that in the mutation proceedings the order in favour of the petitioner has been stayed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 27.2.2025 and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2025 he preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has also rejected the revision by means of order dated 4.7.2025.

6. In the present proceedings the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Officer as well as Board of Revenue.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, in the meanwhile, has submitted that the application for restoration preferred by opposite party No.3 on 29.4.2016 has been allowed on 6.6.2025 and the suit for partition has been restored and further the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6.6.2025 has preferred a revision on 8.7.2025 which is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. The said revision has been numbered as REB/2973/2025 (Ramesh Kumar Vs. Shrikant).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2015 are illegal, arbitrary and deserve to be set aside in as much as the the petitioner has purchased the entire share of opposite party No.5 and he has stepped into his shoes. He submits that once the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of opposite party No.5 then he deserves to be impleaded in place of opposite party No.5 in the partition suit and both the authorities below have committed manifest error in rejecting the said application. He further submits that merely on account of the fact that parallel proceedings under Section 34 of Revenue Code are pending consideration will not have any bearing effect on the rights of the petitioner in the suit for partition even though in the proceeding for mutation the Sub Divisional Magistrate has stayed the order of competent authority vide order dated 27.2.2025 would not effect the proceedings for partition of the said property. Accordingly, the prayer made for quashing the order dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025.

9. Sri Kshemendra Shukla appearing for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submits that once the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.6.2025 wherein the restoration application of opposite party No.3 has been allowed then all the application which have been decided in the said proceeding also stand challenged in the revision preferred by the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that a specific issue pertaining to validity of the order dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025 has already been taken by the petitioner in the revision and, therefore, for the same cause of action writ petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner raised in the revision is only to the effect that he was not made a party and he was illegally denied participation in the restoration application filed by the respondents on 29.4.2016 despite the fact that the he had stepped into the shoes of opposite party No.5 and it is main plank which is in the revisional proceedings and accordingly submits that on the same ground same grievance has been raised in the present writ petition wherein the orders dated 19.3.2025 and 4.7.2025 have been assailed.

10. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in the partition proceedings stood rejected by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 19.3.2025. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has purchased a share of opposite part No.5 through registered sale deed and merely on account of pendency of the mutation proceedings he has been denied participation in the partition suit.

11. These are the issues which would certainly be considered in the revision preferred by the petitioner. Considering that all the issues have been raised by the petitioner in the revision and it is only on this account that this Court feels constrained in entertaining the petition on behalf of the petitioner in as much as he would not be permitted to raise his grievance before all parallel authorities/courts.

12. There is no denial of the fact by the petitioner that all these issues raised in the present petition have been taken by him in the revision filed against the order dated 6.6.2025. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

13. With regard to the reply to the objection pertaining to maintainability of the present writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aspect pertaining to validity of the appellate order have been raised by him before the revisional authority and he has also taken ground pertaining to rejection of this application for impleadment but submits that the order of rejection of impleadment has already been upheld by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 4.7.2025 and accordingly in the present revision the Board of Revenue may consider the order dated 4.7.2025 to be binding upon them and may not interfere in the same and the revision preferred by the petitioner.

14. At this stage, Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that he would not have any objection in case the Board of Revenue decides the issue pertaining to impleadment of the petitioner ignoring the order dated 4.7.2025.

15. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, and specially considering the fact that the petitioner has already filed revision where all the grounds pertaining to validity of the order dated 6.6.2025 have been raised by him including the order dated 19.3.2025, the petition is relegated to his remedy already availed by him by filing revision and the revisional authority is directed to consider and decide the said revision with expedition in accordance with law. It is made clear that they will also consider and decide the aspect pertaining to impleadment of the petitioner and while considering the said submissions of the petitioner they shall not be bound by their previous order dated 4.7.2025.

16. The parties have undertaken to cooperate in the said proceedings before the court.

17. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench