AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.(Oral)—Heard learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the private-respondent as well as the State.
A new case cannot be permitted or allowed to be made out at the level of the writ court by the petitioner or the private-respondent no. 5, who happens to be his own brother. Obviously, a new story has been introduced to get over the rigors of the decision rendered by the Collector and held in favour of the private-respondent no. 6 to be a "Bataidar" over the land in question.
There is adequate finding that private-respondent no. 5 had participated in the proceedings including the nomination of a "Panch" and after the order had gone against his interest, they had filed the writ application trying to take a plea that there was partition between the family and the land belonging to the present petitioner and the private-respondent no. 5 had no right to play. In support thereof only an affidavit has been filed on behalf of private-respondent no. 5 with absolutely no evidence thereof.
Even in the impugned order, no serious defence had been put up with regard to the partition within the family or the land belonging only to the present petitioner.
Contrary to the same, the private-respondent no. 6 has brought adequate evidence on record to show that for all practical purposes all the brothers have asserted their right in other ceiling proceedings as one entity instead of separate entity or persons having their own interest in terms of a partition.
The writ application, therefore, is dismissed. The impugned order is not required to be interfered with, especially on a new plea, which is sought to be taken over and above the adjudication, which has been made and the Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not act as a super-collector in adjudication of such matter and permit the petitioner to argue the matter afresh.
Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed.
Dismissal of the writ application, however, will not come in the way of the right of the petitioner as landlord to claim benefit under section 48 (a) of the BT Act and other provisions of the Act.