SHAHEEM SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Balram Yadav, Advocate for the caveator/opposite party no. 3, and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

(3.) A caveat has been filed by three applicants through Shri Balram Yadav, Advocate. Out of three applicants one i.e. applicant no. 3 is already arrayed as opposite party no. 3, but, the remaining two applicants are not parties in this writ petition. Applicant no. 2- Alim Khan is the erstwhile tenure holder of the land in question who has sold of the land to the opposite party no. 3 and as the latter is already an opposite party, therefore, Alim Khan is neither necessary nor proper party in these proceedings nor he is entitled to be heard. As regards applicant no. 1- Mohd. Farhad, Shri Balram Yadav, Advocate submitted that the land which was the subject matter of suit for partition under Sec. 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it was also the subject matter of consolidation proceedings. The old Gata number of the land in dispute was 1595 and the new Gata number is 781. Arising from the consolidation proceedings a writ petition bearing No. 8395 (Cons.) of 2019 has been filed by the applicant no. 1- Mohd Farhad claiming rights in respect of the said Gata. However, on being asked Shri Yadav fairly accepted that there is no stay or interim order in the said writ petition. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that applicant no. 1- Mohd. Farhad does not have any entitlement to be heard in these proceedings. He may pursue his writ petition which is said to be pending before this Court or seek such other remedy as may be available in law. Moreover, applicant nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any application for impleadment in these proceedings. As regards the applicant no. 3 who is already arrayed as opposite party no. 3 Shri Yadav has not filed any counter affidavit on her behalf. We asked Shri Yadav as to whether the opposite party no. 3 has challenged the final decree under Sec. 116 he submitted that it is proposed to be challenged and the opposite party no. 3 claims that she did not have any knowledge of the said decree.