Vindhyachal vs State of U.P. and Others

The Petitioner has filed a substitution application. Shri A.P. Tiwari has no objection to the substitution. The substitution application to record the date of death of Shri Vindhyachal on 29.1.2011 and to substitute his heirs mentioned in para 2 in the array of parties is accordingly allowed. Let the substitution be carried out.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It is contended that the Suit No. 197 of 2006 u/s 229-B of the U.P. ZA & LR Act is pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate and in which a title in respect of arazi No. 92 is involved. Shri Gobri-the Defendant in the suit has taken an objection that the High Court has passed an order in Writ Petition No. 35042 of 2003 Gobri v. State of U.P. and Ors. on 25.1.2005, allowing the Writ Petition and directing the proceedings under the Ceiling Act to abate and to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue records. Shri Gobri is claiming that a report given by the State Government in the suit includes plot No. 92 and thus a Sub Divisional Magistrate is likely to be influenced by the order passed by the High Court deciding Petitioner''s suit. It is contended that the land in plot No. 92 is a ''Seer'' land of the Petitioner and that the clarification be made that no orders were passed by the High Court with regard to the land in dispute.

Shri A.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent No. 6 submits that suit for declaration is still pending. A writ petition for directions to decide the suit without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment of this Court dated 25.1.2005 is not maintainable. It is only, when the suit is decided that the point can be taken. The Petitioner has a right to make objections to recording the name of ''Gobri'' as bhumidhar of Plot No. 92 and it is only if his objections are not sustained and declaration is not granted that he may raise issue in appeal.

Shri S.N. Tripathi submits that not only the Respondent No. 6 but the State has also raised a plea that since Writ Petition No. 35042 of 2003 Gobri v. State of U.P. has been decided in his favour on 25.1.2005, the name of ''Gobri'' has been rightly recorded as bhumidhar.

The writ petition is wholly misconceived. In Writ Petition No. 35042 of 2003 the Petitioner was not a party. The writ petition was not filed to declare the rights of ''Gobri'' as bhumidhar. The matter only related to urban ceiling and that this Court has allowed the writ petition on the ground that physical possession and not notional possession is to be seen for the purposes of abatement of the proceedings after Urban Ceiling Act was repealed.

The apprehensions of the Petitioner is also unfounded. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot pass any peremptory orders or to decide an issue, which is subject matter of declaration by the revenue court in a suit u/s 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.