K.S. SUNA MIANDAD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 10/3/2016 at Annexure-R whereby their Revision Petition laying a challenge to the Assistant Commissioner's order dtd. 11/9/2013 has been negatived. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the revision itself was founded on a registered Sale Deed dtd. 21/1/1957 in favour of Mr.Abdul Raheem Sab under whom Petitioner bought by virtue of Sale Deed dtd. 31/7/2003 and therefore, the dismissal of the revision is unsustainable. He also argues that the private Respondents' O.S.No.1252/2011 now renumbered as O.S.No.406/2020 for declaration of title is pending in which Petitioner happens to be one of the defendants. He also hastens to add that Petitioner's O.S.No.1557/2013 wherein the private respondents also figures as one of the defendants. That being the position, there was absolutely no reason to dismiss the revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, argues the counsel.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order contending that the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faltered more particularly when the RTS proceedings have nothing to do with title to the property which aspect is being agitated on the floor of the Civil Courts in two suits mentioned above. The counsel appearing for the private Respondents submits that the Petitioner has already obtained an order restraining alienation of the subject property and therefore, this becomes an added point for rescuing his clients. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a conditional indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: