High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Mishrilal Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Administration First, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Subhash Chandra Maurya Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya on behalf of respondent No.4 on caveat.

2. It has been submitted that the present dispute pertains to the land situated at gata No.246/0.190 hectare and 236/0.991 hectare situated at village Jalalpur, Pargana-Ikauna, Payagpur, Shravasti which has been initially recorded in the name of Ram Khelawan son of Nageshwar. It is the case of the petitioner that Ram Khelawan had executed a will in favour of petitioner on 15.12.1995 and on the basis of the said will he had moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before Tehsildar, Tehsil- Payagpur, who has passed in favour of the petitioner on 17.5.1999. Opposite party No.4 had moved an applicaditon for recall of the said order as he was also claiming mutation on the basis of family settlement being nephew of Ram Khelawan. It is during pendency of the said proceedings that Ram Khelawan is alleged to have been murdered by opposite party No.4 and during the trial opposite party No.4 has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment.

3. The proceedings before the Tehsildar had concluded on 17.5.1999 wherein it was recorded that Ram Raj was present in the court and had moved the application for adjournment. The application of the petitioner was allowed and the name of the respondents were directed to be deleted from the revenue records.

4. Appeals were preferred agaisnt the order of Tehsildar dated 17.5.1999 which were decided vide order dated 5.6.2002 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bahraich who while allowing the appeal preferred by the private respondents was of the view that facts recorded by Naib Tehsildar with regard to presence of Ram Raj was clearly illegal, arbitrary and false in as much as at the relevant time Ram Raj has been convicted by the trail court for murdering Ram Khelawan and there is no pleading on record to show that he was released on parole so that he could appear before the Naib Tehsildar and consequently the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, was of the view that Ram Raj was never afforded adequate opportunity of before Naib Tehsildar and accordingly allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 17.5.1999 and remanding the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for passing fresh orders after hearing all the parties concerned.

5. Against the appellate order dated 5.6.2002 the petitioner had preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda who has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of appellate court remanding the matter back for being decided afresh.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar had passed order dated 17.5.1999 after hearing all the parties concerned and, therefore, supported teh order dated 17.5.1999 and prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as order dated 23.6.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration)-First, Devi Patan Division, Gonda.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand have opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is concurrent findings of fact that Ram Raj who was lodged in jail at that relevant time was never afforded opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that had Ram Raj been granted adequate opportunity of hearing he would have proved family settlement before the Naib Tehsildar and in the present circumstances he has supported both the impugned orders.

8. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that Ram Raj is a necessary party in the present dispute who claims mutation of the property of Ram Khelawan on the basis of family settlement. There is again no dispute in the fact that Naib Tehsildar had passed order dated 17.5.1999 while allowing the application of the petitioner clearly recording the fact that on 8.3.1999 Ram Raj was present in the court and had moved application for adjournment. This fact was found to be false in as much as on the said date Ram Raj was lodged in jail and there were no order for his release so that he could be present in the court.

9. Apart from the above, the appellate court clearly recorded a finding that Ram Raj is a necessary party in the present case and has been denied adequate opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, he remanded the matter back for consideration afresh before the Naib Tehsildar and the said order came to be upheld in the revision by Additional Commissioner and we do not find any infirmity in the the said orders since the petitioner was unable to prove the fact that as to how Ram Raj was present in the court on 8.3.1999 as at the said time he had been convicted for murdering Ram Khelawan and sentenced to life imprisonment.

10. Apart from the above, we find that Ram Raj was not adequately allowed to lead his evidence before the Naib Tehsildar and put is claim and accordingly his case could not be considered and hence the only option left open for the appellate authority was to remand the matter for passing fresh orders.

11. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference, especially considering that the parties will be at liberty to adduce all the evidence and material before the Naib Tehsildar and enable him to take a fresh decision and pacify the present dispute.

12. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that Naib Tehsildar shall conclude the proceedings with expedition say within a period of four months.

13. Both the parties undertake to file fresh pleadings, if any, within a period of next three weeks and the parties shall file objections to the pleadings within two weeks thereafter.

14. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before Naib Tehsildar.

15. Till final decision is made by the Naib Tehsildar the parties shall maintain status- quo over the property in dispute as existing today. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Mishrilal Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Administration First, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Subhash Chandra Maurya Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya on behalf of respondent No.4 on caveat.

2. It has been submitted that the present dispute pertains to the land situated at gata No.246/0.190 hectare and 236/0.991 hectare situated at village Jalalpur, Pargana-Ikauna, Payagpur, Shravasti which has been initially recorded in the name of Ram Khelawan son of Nageshwar. It is the case of the petitioner that Ram Khelawan had executed a will in favour of petitioner on 15.12.1995 and on the basis of the said will he had moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before Tehsildar, Tehsil- Payagpur, who has passed in favour of the petitioner on 17.5.1999. Opposite party No.4 had moved an applicaditon for recall of the said order as he was also claiming mutation on the basis of family settlement being nephew of Ram Khelawan. It is during pendency of the said proceedings that Ram Khelawan is alleged to have been murdered by opposite party No.4 and during the trial opposite party No.4 has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment.

3. The proceedings before the Tehsildar had concluded on 17.5.1999 wherein it was recorded that Ram Raj was present in the court and had moved the application for adjournment. The application of the petitioner was allowed and the name of the respondents were directed to be deleted from the revenue records.

4. Appeals were preferred agaisnt the order of Tehsildar dated 17.5.1999 which were decided vide order dated 5.6.2002 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bahraich who while allowing the appeal preferred by the private respondents was of the view that facts recorded by Naib Tehsildar with regard to presence of Ram Raj was clearly illegal, arbitrary and false in as much as at the relevant time Ram Raj has been convicted by the trail court for murdering Ram Khelawan and there is no pleading on record to show that he was released on parole so that he could appear before the Naib Tehsildar and consequently the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, was of the view that Ram Raj was never afforded adequate opportunity of before Naib Tehsildar and accordingly allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 17.5.1999 and remanding the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for passing fresh orders after hearing all the parties concerned.

5. Against the appellate order dated 5.6.2002 the petitioner had preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda who has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of appellate court remanding the matter back for being decided afresh.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar had passed order dated 17.5.1999 after hearing all the parties concerned and, therefore, supported teh order dated 17.5.1999 and prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as order dated 23.6.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration)-First, Devi Patan Division, Gonda.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand have opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is concurrent findings of fact that Ram Raj who was lodged in jail at that relevant time was never afforded opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that had Ram Raj been granted adequate opportunity of hearing he would have proved family settlement before the Naib Tehsildar and in the present circumstances he has supported both the impugned orders.

8. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that Ram Raj is a necessary party in the present dispute who claims mutation of the property of Ram Khelawan on the basis of family settlement. There is again no dispute in the fact that Naib Tehsildar had passed order dated 17.5.1999 while allowing the application of the petitioner clearly recording the fact that on 8.3.1999 Ram Raj was present in the court and had moved application for adjournment. This fact was found to be false in as much as on the said date Ram Raj was lodged in jail and there were no order for his release so that he could be present in the court.

9. Apart from the above, the appellate court clearly recorded a finding that Ram Raj is a necessary party in the present case and has been denied adequate opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, he remanded the matter back for consideration afresh before the Naib Tehsildar and the said order came to be upheld in the revision by Additional Commissioner and we do not find any infirmity in the the said orders since the petitioner was unable to prove the fact that as to how Ram Raj was present in the court on 8.3.1999 as at the said time he had been convicted for murdering Ram Khelawan and sentenced to life imprisonment.

10. Apart from the above, we find that Ram Raj was not adequately allowed to lead his evidence before the Naib Tehsildar and put is claim and accordingly his case could not be considered and hence the only option left open for the appellate authority was to remand the matter for passing fresh orders.

11. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference, especially considering that the parties will be at liberty to adduce all the evidence and material before the Naib Tehsildar and enable him to take a fresh decision and pacify the present dispute.

12. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that Naib Tehsildar shall conclude the proceedings with expedition say within a period of four months.

13. Both the parties undertake to file fresh pleadings, if any, within a period of next three weeks and the parties shall file objections to the pleadings within two weeks thereafter.

14. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before Naib Tehsildar.

15. Till final decision is made by the Naib Tehsildar the parties shall maintain status- quo over the property in dispute as existing today. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench