Ramesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others

1. Heard Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.7.

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

3. The present dispute pertains to the property situated on gata No.429/3.281 hectare situated in Village - Neevi, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Lalganj, District Reabareli which was jointly recorded in the name of opposite party No.s 3 to 6, namely Srikant, Shashikant and Ravikant all sons of Uma Nath, Prateek AGnihotri son of Srikant. It has been submitted that in 1989 partition suit was filed by opposite party No.5 son of Ravi kant which was allowed by means of order dated 18.3.1990 by which one fourth share of each to respondent Nos. 3 to 6 was declared and, thereafter, the Lekhpal had prepared a Kurra on 15.1.2014 and the said Kurra was approved on 28.2.2014. Opposite party No.5 thereafter sold his share of an area of 0.845 hectare to the petitioner on 26.6.2019 through registered sale deed and the name of the petitioner has also been mutated in the revenue records on 24.9.2021 in place of Ravikant. It is further stated that after the order dated 28.4.2014 was passed in the partition suit opposite party No.3 i.e. Srikant son of Uma Nath had filed an application on 29.4.2016 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the partition order dated 28.2.2014, 18.3.1990 and decree dated 30.5.2014. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner had also filed objections to the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and after the petitioner purchased the property from Ravikant. 2 WRIC No. 8493 of 2025

4. The petitioner had also filed an application for mutation on 30.6.2014 the application for recall as allowed on 6.6.2025 by Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Judicial Lalganj, District Raebareli. Apart from moving application under Order 13 Rule 13 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate impleadment which was allowed and all the orders passed in proceedings, namely order dated 18.3.1990, Kura Chittha partition dated 15.1.2014, approval of Chittha dated 28.2.2014 and final order dated 28.7.2014 were all set aside and the proceedings before the trial court were restored for being decided afresh and the next date was fixed. the petitioner had moved application

5. It has been submitted that order dated 6.6.2025 has been challenged before Board of Revenue where the matter has been finally heard on 16.8.2025 in revision No.2977 of 2025 and the judgment has not been pronounced till date. He submits that after passing the order dad 6.6.2025 the application for recall preferred by Ravikant came to be considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj on 17.7.2025. In the application for recall it was informed that his application for recall has also been been allowed on 6.6.2025 and all the orders passed including the preliminary decree dated 18.3.1990 and the final order dated 28.7.2014 have been set aside and the suit proceedings have been restored. He has further taken into account that during the said period the plaintiff had sold the land through registered sale deed while the respondents have executed a Hibanama and even entries have been made in revenue records. In the meanwhile, considering that all the parties have changed it would be proper to permit the contesting parties to file a fresh suit for partition under Section 116 of the Revenue by means of its order 17.7.2025

6. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the validity of the order dated 17.7.2025 and for a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to continue the partition proceedings.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders and submitted that the preliminary decree had been prepared in the suit for partition and even approval of kurra have been set aside on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the matter is now pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. He submits that on an application moved by private respondents the Sub Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceedings and given liberty to the parities to file a fresh suit for partition. We find that this aspect of the matter could not be opposed by the petitioner that in the meanwhile the plaintiff had 3 WRIC No. 8493 of 2025 sold the disputed property by means of a registered sale deed while the opposite party has executed a Hibanama and that been entered into in the revenue records and in the khatauni new gata number has been allotted and, therefore, there is change of revenue records and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances a fresh suit for partition ought to be filed by the parties. It has further been submitted that in compliance of the order dated 17.7.2025 Sri Kant-opposite party No.3 has already filed a suit under Section 116 of the Revenue Code before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Raebareli where the petitioner has not been made a respondent but the petitioner is fully aware of the aforesaid suit proceedings.

8. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present proceedings is pending since 1999 and they have culminated by means of order dated 28.7.2014 by passing of a final decree. Against the final decree two simultaneously proceedings were initiated; one an application under Order 39 was filed while, on the other hand, application for recall was filed. Both the applications stood allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Judicial Lalganj, Raebareli and the application under Order 39 was allowed on 6.6.2025 against which the proceedings are pending before the Board of Revenue while, on the other hand, the application for recall was also allowed taking into account the previous order dated 6.6.2025 and considering the changed circumstances Sub Divisional Magistrate had granted liberty to the parties to file a fresh suit for partition and the matter has been proceeding. We do not find any infirmity in the order dated 17.7.2025 in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Board of Revenue may proceed to pass some orders which may create further difficulties and thereby the proceedings in case are restored will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings.

10. We have further noticed that it is in compliance of the order dated 17.7.2025 that fresh suit proceedings has been filed by opposite party No.3 for partition but we also take notice of the fact that the petitioner has not been made as a defendant in the said proceedings. This Court has already held that no any infirmity can be found in the order dated 17.7.2025 and accordingly it ought to be decided afresh where all the parties should join the said proceedings in partition case Np.5463/2025 (computerized case No.T202510580405463) (Sri Kant Vs. Shashi Kant and others). We further direct the petitioner to place this order before the Board of Revenue so that it can take cognizance of the order dated 4 WRIC No. 8493 of 2025

17.7.2025 as well as the present order passed in the present writ petition.

11. Apart from the above, the entire dispute is remitted to the Sub Division Magistrate who is directed to proceed to decide case No.5463 of 2025 (computerized case No.T202510580405463) (Sri Kant Vs. Shashi Kant and others). The petitioner is also granted liberty to move appropriate application for impleading himself as a party in the aforesaid suit.

12. Considering the pendency of the aforesaid dispute, the trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously and concluded the same within one year from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. All the parties are further directed to cooperate in the suit proceeding.

13. With aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. September 4, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) 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.s 1 and 2 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.7.

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

3. The present dispute pertains to the property situated on gata No.429/3.281 hectare situated in Village - Neevi, Pargana Sareni, Tehsil Lalganj, District Reabareli which was jointly recorded in the name of opposite party No.s 3 to 6, namely Srikant, Shashikant and Ravikant all sons of Uma Nath, Prateek AGnihotri son of Srikant. It has been submitted that in 1989 partition suit was filed by opposite party No.5 son of Ravi kant which was allowed by means of order dated 18.3.1990 by which one fourth share of each to respondent Nos. 3 to 6 was declared and, thereafter, the Lekhpal had prepared a Kurra on 15.1.2014 and the said Kurra was approved on 28.2.2014. Opposite party No.5 thereafter sold his share of an area of 0.845 hectare to the petitioner on 26.6.2019 through registered sale deed and the name of the petitioner has also been mutated in the revenue records on 24.9.2021 in place of Ravikant. It is further stated that after the order dated 28.4.2014 was passed in the partition suit opposite party No.3 i.e. Srikant son of Uma Nath had filed an application on 29.4.2016 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the partition order dated 28.2.2014, 18.3.1990 and decree dated 30.5.2014. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner had also filed objections to the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and after the petitioner purchased the property from Ravikant. 2 WRIC No. 8493 of 2025

4. The petitioner had also filed an application for mutation on 30.6.2014 the application for recall as allowed on 6.6.2025 by Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Judicial Lalganj, District Raebareli. Apart from moving application under Order 13 Rule 13 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate impleadment which was allowed and all the orders passed in proceedings, namely order dated 18.3.1990, Kura Chittha partition dated 15.1.2014, approval of Chittha dated 28.2.2014 and final order dated 28.7.2014 were all set aside and the proceedings before the trial court were restored for being decided afresh and the next date was fixed. the petitioner had moved application

5. It has been submitted that order dated 6.6.2025 has been challenged before Board of Revenue where the matter has been finally heard on 16.8.2025 in revision No.2977 of 2025 and the judgment has not been pronounced till date. He submits that after passing the order dad 6.6.2025 the application for recall preferred by Ravikant came to be considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj on 17.7.2025. In the application for recall it was informed that his application for recall has also been been allowed on 6.6.2025 and all the orders passed including the preliminary decree dated 18.3.1990 and the final order dated 28.7.2014 have been set aside and the suit proceedings have been restored. He has further taken into account that during the said period the plaintiff had sold the land through registered sale deed while the respondents have executed a Hibanama and even entries have been made in revenue records. In the meanwhile, considering that all the parties have changed it would be proper to permit the contesting parties to file a fresh suit for partition under Section 116 of the Revenue by means of its order 17.7.2025

6. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the validity of the order dated 17.7.2025 and for a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to continue the partition proceedings.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders and submitted that the preliminary decree had been prepared in the suit for partition and even approval of kurra have been set aside on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the matter is now pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. He submits that on an application moved by private respondents the Sub Divisional Magistrate has dropped the proceedings and given liberty to the parities to file a fresh suit for partition. We find that this aspect of the matter could not be opposed by the petitioner that in the meanwhile the plaintiff had 3 WRIC No. 8493 of 2025 sold the disputed property by means of a registered sale deed while the opposite party has executed a Hibanama and that been entered into in the revenue records and in the khatauni new gata number has been allotted and, therefore, there is change of revenue records and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances a fresh suit for partition ought to be filed by the parties. It has further been submitted that in compliance of the order dated 17.7.2025 Sri Kant-opposite party No.3 has already filed a suit under Section 116 of the Revenue Code before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Raebareli where the petitioner has not been made a respondent but the petitioner is fully aware of the aforesaid suit proceedings.

8. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present proceedings is pending since 1999 and they have culminated by means of order dated 28.7.2014 by passing of a final decree. Against the final decree two simultaneously proceedings were initiated; one an application under Order 39 was filed while, on the other hand, application for recall was filed. Both the applications stood allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Judicial Lalganj, Raebareli and the application under Order 39 was allowed on 6.6.2025 against which the proceedings are pending before the Board of Revenue while, on the other hand, the application for recall was also allowed taking into account the previous order dated 6.6.2025 and considering the changed circumstances Sub Divisional Magistrate had granted liberty to the parties to file a fresh suit for partition and the matter has been proceeding. We do not find any infirmity in the order dated 17.7.2025 in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Board of Revenue may proceed to pass some orders which may create further difficulties and thereby the proceedings in case are restored will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings.

10. We have further noticed that it is in compliance of the order dated 17.7.2025 that fresh suit proceedings has been filed by opposite party No.3 for partition but we also take notice of the fact that the petitioner has not been made as a defendant in the said proceedings. This Court has already held that no any infirmity can be found in the order dated 17.7.2025 and accordingly it ought to be decided afresh where all the parties should join the said proceedings in partition case Np.5463/2025 (computerized case No.T202510580405463) (Sri Kant Vs. Shashi Kant and others). We further direct the petitioner to place this order before the Board of Revenue so that it can take cognizance of the order dated 4 WRIC No. 8493 of 2025

17.7.2025 as well as the present order passed in the present writ petition.

11. Apart from the above, the entire dispute is remitted to the Sub Division Magistrate who is directed to proceed to decide case No.5463 of 2025 (computerized case No.T202510580405463) (Sri Kant Vs. Shashi Kant and others). The petitioner is also granted liberty to move appropriate application for impleading himself as a party in the aforesaid suit.

12. Considering the pendency of the aforesaid dispute, the trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously and concluded the same within one year from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. All the parties are further directed to cooperate in the suit proceeding.

13. With aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. September 4, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench