BINDA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Lakhpatti, wife of Mahadev, was recorded tenure holder Arazi No. 246 Area 0-11-1, 279 Area 0-6-0, 280 Area 0/14/10, and 281 Area 0/2/10. Total 4 plots Area 7-7-1. Lakhpati executed an unregistered will deed on 12/3/1996 in favour of Basanti, wife of Harihar Prasad, which was alleged to be registered subsequently on 16/11/2006. Two other unregistered will deeds alleged to have been executed by Lakhpatti in favour of Jai Prakash Jaiswal and Ravi Prakash Jaiswal. Lakhpatti died on 13/3/1996. The application under Sec. 34 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 was filed on behalf of Basanti on the basis of unregistered will deed dtd. 12/3/1996. The aforementioned mutation application filed by Basanti was allowed vide order dtd. 12/3/1999. Against the order dtd. 12/3/1999, an application to recall the order dtd. 12/3/1999 was filed by Ravi Prakash Jaiswal on 24/5/1999. Jai Prakash Jaiswal also filed a recall application as a manager of the institution on 7/6/1999. The aforementioned restoration applications were heard and rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dtd. 16/7/2002. Against the order dtd. 16/7/2002 and 12/3/1999, an appeal was filed by Jai Prakash Jaiswal as a manager of the institution, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 11/6/2003. Jai Prakash Jaiswal challenged the aforesaid order dtd. 11/6/2003, 16/3/2002 and 12/3/1999 by way of revision before Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 3/4/2000. Basanti has executed a registered sale-deed in favour of petitioner as well as one Smt. Prabha Devi on 3/6/2000. Petitioner along with Prabha Devi applied for mutation on the basis of the registered Sale deed dtd. 3/6/2000 in the place of Basanti Devi. Jai Prakash Jaiswal challenged the order dtd. 3/4/2006, 11/6/2003, 12/3/1999 and 16/7/2002 before this Court by Writ Petition No. 47801 of 2006 in which initially interim order was granted but after exchange of the affidavits, writ petition was heard finally and vide order dtd. 26/3/2012 dismissed the aforementioned writ petition with liberty to petitioner or any of the other claimants to the holdings of Smt. Lakhaptti Devi to file a regular suit for declaration of thier right. In pursuance of the order of this Court, petitioner filed a suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act was filed by respondent No. 5-Mahadev Prasad Inter College through its manager which was registered as case No. T201302574316 before Sub-Divisional Officer. Notices were issued to the defendants in the aforementioned suit accordingly defendants have put in appearance in the suit. Trial court proceeded in the aforementioned suit ex parte and dismissed the suit vide order dtd. 24/5/2018 is not maintainable. Against the order dtd. 24/5/2018, respondent No. 6 alleging himself to be manager of Mahadev Prasad Inter College filed an application for restoration along with prayer for condonation of delay as well as amendment@impleadment. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide Order dtd. 13/7/2020 issued notice on the applications and vide Order dtd. 2/6/2022 recalled the earlier order dtd. 24/5/2018. Against the order dtd. 2/6/2022, petitioner filed a restoration application dtd. 13/7/2022 along with the prayer of condonation of delay, but the aforementioned application was dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 12/9/2022. Against the order dtd. 2/6/2022 and 12/9/2022, petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, which was dismissed by respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 6/4/2023. Second appeal filed by petitioner before respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue, was also dismissed, vide order dtd. 23/6/2023. After dismissal of second appeal by respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue, the matter was proceeded before the trial court. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application under Sec. 212 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before Commissioner to transfer the suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act from the Court of concern Sub-Divisional Magistrate to any other court, as respondent No. 6 being practicing Advocate of Allahabad High Court, has created influence over the concern Sub Judicial Officer. Commissioner heard the transfer application and vide order dtd. 8/11/2023, dismissed the transfer application filed by petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 8/11/2023 before respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue, which was registered as Case No. TA/3849/2023, Computerized Case No. AL20230257003849. The aforementioned transfer application@Case was heard by respondent No. 2- Board of Revenue, who vide order dtd. 5/12/2023, rejected the transfer application, hence this Writ Petition.

(3.) It is also material that petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 6/4/2023, 2/6/2022, 12/9/2022 by way of Writ-B No. 2531 of 2023, which was heard in presence of the parties and vide final order dtd. 25/7/2023, Writ Petition was finally disposed of, setting aside the order dtd. 2/6/2022, as well as all the consequential orders, and remitted the matter back before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the restoration application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing of concern parties, considering application for condonation of delay and objections, if any, filed by the parties. In pursuance of the order of this court dtd. 25/7/2003 Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded with the matter and passed the order dtd. 27/10/2023 which is under challenge before Commissioner.