Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3370 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Vijay Lakshmi W/O S.P. Tewari Respondent :- Addl. District And Sessions Judge/Spl.Judge (E.C.Act) & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- A.S. Parmar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing
Counsel.
Brief facts of the present case are that the dispute relates to land Gata
No. 330/0.588 hectare and Gata No. 329/0.626 hectare situated in
Village Khetuyee, Pargana Banger, Tahsil Sadar, District Hardoi. The
said land was recorded in the name of Babu Ram, who died issueless.
During life time, Babu Ram executed unregistered Will dated 3.11.2002
in favour of the petitioners by which he inherited the whole property
towards the aforesaid land, being sole legal heirs and nearest
successors. Opposite party No.2, after death of Babu Ram, is claiming
his right over the land mentioned above on basis of registered sale deed
said to have been executed by Babu Ram in his life period.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute has
been inherited to the petitioners by late Babu Ram during his life time
being legal heirs, which comes within the purview of Section 175 of the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and there was
no occasion to transfer the land in dispute in favour of opposite party
No.2 on the basis of alleged sale deed. Petitioners challenged the
aforesaid alleged sale deed 29.10.2002 before the Court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Hardoi by way of filing Regular Suit No.201 of 2004 for
cancellation of it. In the aforesaid Suit, opposite party No.2 filed his
written statement and denied the contents of the Suit.
The Civil Court framed issues in which issue No.5 is as to whether the
Suit is maintainable to adjudicate the matter by the Court concerned or it
is barred by Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act which was decided by the Civil Judge against the
opposite party No.2 in negative, against which the opposite party No.2
filed Civil Revision which was allowed and the order dated 13.11.2006
was set aside by the order dated 18.2.2009. Being aggrieved, the
instant writ petition has been filed.
After arguing the matter at length, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that interest of justice would suffice, if the trial Court is directed
to decide the Suit expeditiously, to which learned Standing Counsel has
no objection.
As the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, issuance of notice to the
opposite party No.2 is dispensed with.
Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to decide
the Regular Suit No. 201 of 2004, in accordance with law, latest by
31.12.2001, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 15.7.2010
lakshman