Virendra Kumar S/O Late Bhola ( U/A … vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, … on 29 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar S/O Late Bhola ( U/A … vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, … on 29 July, 2010
Court No. - 24

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4194 of 2010

Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar S/O Late Bhola ( U/A 227 )
Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur, Faizabad & Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Kumar Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

As the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous in nature, issuance of notice
to the private respondent is dispensed with.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is resident
of Village Mugispur, Pargana Paschim Rath, Tehsil Bikapur, District
Fiazabad. A sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by Amar
Nath and Prema Devi on 4.10.2004. On the basis of the report of Area
Lekhpal, the Tehsildar, Bikapur passed a mutation order in favour of the
petitioner and the name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue
records. The opposite party No.2 moved an application before the
Tehsildar for making party on the basis of an unregistered agreement
executed by the father and husband of Prema Devi. The Tehsildar
Bikapur stayed his own order of mutation without affording opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, he filed a revision before
the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Second, Commissioner,
Faizabad against the order dated 13.4.2005.

Though the Commissioner admitted the revision, yet he vacated the
stay order dated 13.4.2005. Subsequently, the opposite party No.2 filed
an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur against the
mutation order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Tehsildar, Bikapur
without mentioning the revision proceedings. The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bikapur passed an order ex parte staying the mutation order
dated 17.11.2004 without issuing notice and without opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, he filed written statement in appeal
in the year 2006. The opposite party No.2 is creating hindrance in the
peaceful possession over the land in dispute after granting the interim
order passed by the Court and he is seeking unnecessary adjournment
before the Appellate Court.

Petitioner’s Counsel prays that ends of justice would be secured, if the
opposite party No.1 is directed to decide the appeal, expeditiously, to
which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

Accordingly, the opposite party no.1 is directed to decide the appeal, in
accordance with law, latest by 31.12.2010, after affording opportunity of
hearing to all the parties.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 29.7.2010
lakshman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *