CHIRAGUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relief sought in this petition is for? transfer of a suit under section 229 -B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, 1950 on allegations against the Sub -Divisional Officer Sri Kehari Singh, to some other court.?

(2.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record a copy of the transfer application that had been filed before the Board of Revenue under section 273 of the U.P.Tenancy Act, 1939.? The learned counsel Sri Anupam Kulshreshta for the respondent no.3 had also put in appearance and filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the transfer application as also the copy of the plaint and other documents relating to the proceedings in order to assist the court as per the query raised on the previous occasion. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the opposite party no.3 being an influential local Minister of the district of Agra has persuaded the S.D.M., Shri Kehari Singh to proceed in the matter and has also obtained an interim order in his favour. The proceedings are of a suit under section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 being contested by the petitioners as defendant alleging that the suit itself was not maintainable. Shri Anupam Kulshreshta and the learned Standing Counsel do not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage and they pray that the matter be disposed of finally.?

(3.) HOWEVER , paragraph 11 and 12 of the transfer application clearly? recite? that Mr. Kehari Singh is the Sub -Divisional Officer of Tehsil Baah, district Agra and in addition thereto he was also given charge as Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Baah. This fact remains undisputed. A copy of the plaint of the suit has been brought on record and the same demonstrates that Nagar Palika Parishad, Baah is the defendant no. 7 therein. Sri Kehari Singh who is the Sub -Divisional Officer is? also? holding charge as Executive Officer of the defendant no.7 in the suit. The transfer application therefore, also? states a case for consideration on this issue which does not appear to have been noticed by the Board of Revenue .