Smt. Santosh Kumari v. Smt. Kalindi Tiwari. It is on the application moved by responde

Petitioner :- Smt. Kalindi Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prasoon Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Prasoon Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

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

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has purchased a plot of land being Gata No. 174, measuring 0.7 dismil situated at Village - Imlia Gurudayal, Pargana and Tehsil - Goda by means of registered sale deed dated 28.07.1992. The petitioner moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in November, 2024, which was allowed by means of order dated 10.01.2025 and name of petitioner has been duly mutated in the revenue records.

4. Subsequently, respondent no. 3 filed his objections on 21.05.2025, stating that a Civil Suit with regard to the disputed land is pending consideration before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda being Civil Suit No. 225 of 2024 - Smt. Santosh Kumari Vs. Smt. Kalindi Tiwari. It is on the application moved by respondent no. 3 that impugned order dated 24.04.2025, has been passed and the previous order dated 10.01.2025 passed in favour of petitioner has been stayed.

5. While assailing the order dated 24.04.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per provisions of Paragraph 492 of the Revenue Court Manual, where order has been passed in favour of petitioner after hearing him, same cannot be varied or set aside without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Provisions of Paragraph 492 of the U.P. Court Manual are quoted herein below :- "492. Recall of stay or interim order- The interlocutory order or stay order passed under this chapter may be discharged, varied or set aside by the court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order: Provided that where an order has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order and consequently, same is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition.

8. Considering the rival submissions it is noticed that application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was allowed on 10.01.2025. It seems that subsequently, an application was filed by respondent no. 3 only to bring on record the fact that a civil suit with regard to disputed property is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda and respondent no. 2 on the said application has passed the order dated 24.04.2025, staying the order dated 10.01.2025.

9. Considering the provisions of para 492 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual indicates that the same is applicable only with regard to interim orders, while in the present case the matter was finally decided in favour of petitioner by order dated 10.01.2025 and consequently, provisions of Para 492 of the Revenue Court Manual will not assist the petitioner in any manner.

10. This Court finds that proviso to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that any party aggrieved by the order passed ex-parte or by default may move an application for deciding such matter within 30 days from the date of such order. This Court finds that the private respondents have invoked the first proviso to Rule 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 while moving application for setting aside of the ex-parte order in respect to which order dated 24.04.2025 has been passed.

11. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that on receipt of application for setting aside of the ex-pare order dated 10.01.2025, has been stayed and notices have been issued to the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was open for the petitioner to put in appearance before the authority concerned and file her objections if any to the stay order and on receipt of such objection, it would have been incumbent upon the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders on the application/objection of petitioner.

12. Accordingly, it is for the aforesaid reasons this Court do not find any infirmity in the order dated 24.04.2025. This Court finds that as per proviso to para 209 of the Revenue Court Manual, any party who had not been heard while deciding any application under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is at liberty to move an application for setting aside ex-parte order. In case any party is aggrieved by the said application the said party has liberty to file his/her objections and participate in the proceedings.

13. Accordingly, the petitioner who is aggrieved party in the present case and in whose favour final orders have been passed on 10.01.2025, is at liberty to file objections to the interim protection granted to the private respondents as well as to the maintainability of the application preferred for recall and on receipt of such objections the concerned authority before whom proceedings have been re-opened, would pass appropriate orders deciding the objections preferred by the petitioner.

14. Subject to aforesaid observations, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

15. However, in case any objections are filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority against the interim protection granted in favour of private respondent, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Smt. Kalindi Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prasoon Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Prasoon Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

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

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has purchased a plot of land being Gata No. 174, measuring 0.7 dismil situated at Village - Imlia Gurudayal, Pargana and Tehsil - Goda by means of registered sale deed dated 28.07.1992. The petitioner moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in November, 2024, which was allowed by means of order dated 10.01.2025 and name of petitioner has been duly mutated in the revenue records.

4. Subsequently, respondent no. 3 filed his objections on 21.05.2025, stating that a Civil Suit with regard to the disputed land is pending consideration before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda being Civil Suit No. 225 of 2024 - Smt. Santosh Kumari Vs. Smt. Kalindi Tiwari. It is on the application moved by respondent no. 3 that impugned order dated 24.04.2025, has been passed and the previous order dated 10.01.2025 passed in favour of petitioner has been stayed.

5. While assailing the order dated 24.04.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per provisions of Paragraph 492 of the Revenue Court Manual, where order has been passed in favour of petitioner after hearing him, same cannot be varied or set aside without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Provisions of Paragraph 492 of the U.P. Court Manual are quoted herein below :- "492. Recall of stay or interim order- The interlocutory order or stay order passed under this chapter may be discharged, varied or set aside by the court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order: Provided that where an order has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order and consequently, same is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition.

8. Considering the rival submissions it is noticed that application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was allowed on 10.01.2025. It seems that subsequently, an application was filed by respondent no. 3 only to bring on record the fact that a civil suit with regard to disputed property is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda and respondent no. 2 on the said application has passed the order dated 24.04.2025, staying the order dated 10.01.2025.

9. Considering the provisions of para 492 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual indicates that the same is applicable only with regard to interim orders, while in the present case the matter was finally decided in favour of petitioner by order dated 10.01.2025 and consequently, provisions of Para 492 of the Revenue Court Manual will not assist the petitioner in any manner.

10. This Court finds that proviso to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that any party aggrieved by the order passed ex-parte or by default may move an application for deciding such matter within 30 days from the date of such order. This Court finds that the private respondents have invoked the first proviso to Rule 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 while moving application for setting aside of the ex-parte order in respect to which order dated 24.04.2025 has been passed.

11. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that on receipt of application for setting aside of the ex-pare order dated 10.01.2025, has been stayed and notices have been issued to the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was open for the petitioner to put in appearance before the authority concerned and file her objections if any to the stay order and on receipt of such objection, it would have been incumbent upon the concerned authority to pass appropriate orders on the application/objection of petitioner.

12. Accordingly, it is for the aforesaid reasons this Court do not find any infirmity in the order dated 24.04.2025. This Court finds that as per proviso to para 209 of the Revenue Court Manual, any party who had not been heard while deciding any application under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is at liberty to move an application for setting aside ex-parte order. In case any party is aggrieved by the said application the said party has liberty to file his/her objections and participate in the proceedings.

13. Accordingly, the petitioner who is aggrieved party in the present case and in whose favour final orders have been passed on 10.01.2025, is at liberty to file objections to the interim protection granted to the private respondents as well as to the maintainability of the application preferred for recall and on receipt of such objections the concerned authority before whom proceedings have been re-opened, would pass appropriate orders deciding the objections preferred by the petitioner.

14. Subject to aforesaid observations, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

15. However, in case any objections are filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority against the interim protection granted in favour of private respondent, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench