VASUNDHARA FOOD PRESERVE LIMITED Vs. NAVENDRA TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri T.M. Khan, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha. Petitioner is before this Court with the request to direct the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the land of Arazi/Khasra no.330 area 0.476 hectare situated at village Damwatiya Tappa Sadi, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar. Further prayer has been made to direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar to decide the Original Suit no.159 of 1999 under Sec. 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act 1950 in accordance with law.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner bought a certain property by a sale deed dated 16.6.1997. Thereafter, a witness of the sale deed, one Navendra Tiwari, filed a Suit no.159 of 1999 under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the year 1999. The said Suit was decreed on 17.11.1999 on the basis of a compromise dated 3.11.1999 between the plaintiff Navendra Tiwari and the petitioner's vendor Urmila Singh. Thereafter, Urmila Singh, the vendor, had filed a recall of the compromise decree. While the recall application was still pending, Navendra Tiwari in the year 2015 sold the property to his two brothers Virendra Tiwari and Shailendra Tiwari. Virendra Tiwari, in his turn, once again sold the property to Vibha Singh on 24.8.2012. When certain building materials were being unloaded on the site then in the year 2015, the petitioner, which is a company, also filed a recall application. The recall application filed by the vendor Urmilla Singh alongwith the application of the petitioners filed in 2015 and also the application filed by the State of U.P. in the year 2015 were heard together and on 29.12.2017 the ex parte decree dated 17.11.1999 was recalled. This meant that the suit would have been heard again on merit. However, another recall application was filed by Vibha Singh on 2.2.2018 for recalling of the order dated 29.12.2017. Alongwith the recall application a Stay application was also filed and on that very date i.e. 2.2.2018 the order dated 29.12.2017 was stayed. Meanwhile, two revisions have been preferred one by Smt. Urmila Singh bearing Revision no.00968 of 2018 and other by Shri Raghav Sharan Mishra bearing Revision no.231 of 2018, both assailing the validity of order dated 02.02.2018. The revision preferred by Raghav Sharan Mishra was admitted and the order 02.02.2018 was stayed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 24.02.2018. The said order was assailed by Smt. Vibha Singh by preferring Writ Petition no.13727 of 2018 (Vibha Singh Vs. Commissioner and others) challenging the order dated 24.02.2018, wherein, this Court has proceeded to ask the Revisional Court to decide the Revision no.231 of 2018 and the parties were asked to maintain status quo as of today qua the property in dispute. Subsequently, the said Revision has been dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 13.07.2018 on the ground that Shri Raghav Sharan Mishra is not a party in the lower court and he has not filed the restoration application agianst the order dated 17.11.1999. Petitioner has also approached this by preferring Writ Petition no.27929 of 2018 (Vasundhara Food Preserve Vs. Navendra Tiwari and others) assailing the validity of order dated 02.02.2018 wherein, this Court has asked the petitioner to approach concerned Presiding Officer within ten days, who would consider the same within next fifteen days. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has approached to the concerned Presiding Officer on 04.09.2018 and finally by order dated 15.09.2018, the order dated 02.02.2018 has been declared as null and void.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a valid sale deed holder and is in possession over the property in dispute but the private respondents specially the eighth and ninth respondents, who are very influential persons as their father Sri Brahma Shankar Tiwari is a politician, are trying to dispossess the petitioner and as such local administration is in collusion with them. He further submits that the fifth to ninth respondents have obtained the sale deed from Shri Navendra Tiwari, Maqsood Ali and Hari Tiwari on the basis of forged compromise decree dated 17.11.1999, which has already been set aside vide an order dated 29.12.2017 and as such, the same has become void ab-initio. He has also informed to the Court that the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned has already issued directives vide order dated 23.10.2018 to the Station House Officer, P.S. Kuber Sthan, Kushi Nagar to take necessary action in view of the revenue record on the application of the petitioner but no action has been taken in the matter and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.