Satish Chandra and Others vs The Addl. Commissioner and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Sri Ajab Narain, Respondent No. 4 claiming himself to be power of attorney holder of Smt. Chhaviraji filed an application u/s 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act in respect of Plot No. 256-ka in which only Gaon Sabha of village Pure Babu, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh was made opposite party. According to the Petitioners their father late Sri Ram Sahai, Respondent No. 5, Ram Dular and Smt. Chhaviraji were initially co-tenure holders, hence in the case instituted by Respondent No. 4 as power of attorney holder of Smt. Chhaviraji, Petitioners'' father and Respondent No. 5 should have been imp leaded. It is mentioned in Para-3 of the writ petition that in the application u/s 33/39 of the Act Ajab Narain had prayed for correction of area of plot in question from 2 biswas 9 biswansis to 3 biswas 9 biswansis. The application which had been registered as Case No. 9/5/118/38 was allowed by Deputy Collector, Patti, Pratapgarh on 12.05.1998 on the basis of report of Tehsildar dated 27.12.1993. The direction given was that the area must be increased from 2 biswas 9 biswansis to 3 biswas 9 biswansis to be recorded in the name of the applicant. Copy of the said order is Annexure-I to the writ petition. The case of the Petitioners is that this increase resulted in decrease of Petitioners'' adjacent Plot No. 256/2.

Respondent No. 5, Ram Dular filed application for recall of the aforesaid order. The said application was rejected on 22.07.1998 against which Respondent No. 5 filed Revision No. 131 of 1998. In the revision Petitioners applied for impalement on 28.12.1998. After the death of Chavi Raji, Ram Dular applied for his own impalement at her place. Two daughters of Smt. Chhaviraji also applied for impalement. Through order dated 14.07.1999 (Annexure-V) it was held that the question of substitution would be decided along with final judgment. Revision was dismissed on 30.07.1999. Copy of the said order is Annexure-VI to the writ petition. Annexures-V and VI have been challenged through this writ petition. In the final order no specific order was passed regarding application of impleament filed by the Petitioner or substitution applications which had been filed by Ram Dular and daughters of Chhaviraji.

In the entire writ petition it has not been stated that there was any clash in between Petitioners'' father and Ram Dular, Respondent No. 5. The only thing which has been stated is that Ram Dular dishonestly did not inform Ram Sahai about the order passed on the application of the Ajab Narain by the S.D.O.

Orders passed u/s 33/39 of U.P.L.R. Act are subject to the result of regular suit. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of regular suit.

In this writ petition on 09.03.2000, an interim order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said order shall remain in operation for a further period of six months and during this period of six months, the parties are also restrained from alienating the property in dispute or part thereof.