NAGENDRA SHARMA Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN PRDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Petitioner in person, learned Counsel for the P.R.D.A., the Respondent No. 3 and for the intervenors.

(2.) The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings including final order dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure-7) of Appeal No. 70 of 2000 passed by the P.R.D.A. Appellate Tribunal by which it has allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 3 and set aside the three orders of the Vice-Chairman, P.R.D.A. dated 27.6.2000, 17.8.2000 and 18.11.2000.

(3.) The dispute in the present matter relates to a piece of land bearing Tauzi No. 5586, Khata No. 167, Plot No. 541, Area 19 decimals situated at Mohalla Sheikhpura (Khajepura), P.S.-Shastrinagar, Patna on the Ashiana Road. The admitted position is that the owner of the said land was late Hardip Singh, grandfather of the Petitioner and father-in-law of Respondent No. 3 Smt. Lalmati Devi. Both the Respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner claim title and ownership over the land in question under two separate Wills. Respondent No. 3 claimed that the alleged will was executed in her favour on 3.12.1979; whereas the claim of the Petitioner was that another Will was executed later in his favour on 10.10.1982 by late Hardip Singh. Both of them filed for grant of probate of the Wills before the District Judge, Patna. Respondent No. 3 Lalmati Devi filed L.A. Case No. 47 of 1992 which was converted into Title Suit No. 15 of 1998 by order dated 12.8.1998. The Petitioner filed L.A. Case No. 37 of 1989 which was converted into Title Suit No. 7 of 1991, which was earlier dismissed on account of non-filing of requisite duty within the time granted. Against the order of dismissal the Petitioner moved this Court and ultimately the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 17275 of 1998 while dismissing the appeal by order dated 2.3.2001 granted six weeks time to the Petitioner to deposit the requisite fee before the trial court and if the same was not deposited within the stipulated period the suit shall stand dismissed. The Petitioner deposited the fee within the time granted by the Apex Court. Both the title suits are still pending.