Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVENDRA MOHAN SHARMA versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devendra Mohan Sharma v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 28777 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 5711 (9 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28777 of2005

Devendra Mohan Sharma....................................Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation Bulandshahr Camp Rampur and others..................................................................Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by Consolidation officer Shahbad Rampur whereby interim order as regards plot no.1363 situated in village Saifini Tahsil Shahbad District Rampur was declined and also the order passed in Revision by the Deputy Director Consolidation whereby the order of Consolidation officer declining interim order was countenanced and revision was dismissed.

As stated supra, the dispute centres round plot no. 1363 situated in village Saifini Tahsil Shahbad District Rampur. It would appear from the record that petitioner preferred objection under section 9 A of the U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act with accompanying application for interim relief on the premises that the contesting Opp. parties were preparing to install petrol pump allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on the plot in question. It would further appear that the Consolidation officer, in his discretion, declined the interim order prayed for and revision preferred against the impugned order also culminated in dismissal. It is in this backdrop that the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that since objection filed under section 9 A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is still pending, in case the contesting Opp. parties who are preparing to install petrol pump on the said plot are not interdicted by an interim order, it would not only impinge upon the result of the decision of objection under section 9 A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act pending before the Consolidation officer but it would be fraught with the consequence of altering the nature of the agricultural land. It is further canvassed that the impugned order refusing interim relief as also the order dismissing the revision suffer from the taint of error of law.  Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp. parties contended that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the plot in question . Elaborating further, he contended that Sri R.K.Sharma, father of the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of Surendra Mohan Sharma as far back as in the year 1981 pursuant thereto, name of the petitioner's father came to be expunged vide order dated 4.7.81 and in this view of the matter, proceeds the submissions, petitioner has no prima facie case, nor balance of convenience leans in his favour and further that no irreparable injury would be occasioned to him as he did not inherit any property from his father in so far as plot no. 387 (now plot no. 1363) is concerned. He lastly contended that objection as well as application for stay order was made at the behest of petrol pump dealer whose petrol pump is situated in the adjoining area.

I have scanned the arguments made across the bar as well as the materials on record.

The interim relief by way of an order of stay is not to be automatically granted to any party approaching the court. It is well settled that a court while considering the grant of a interim relief has to satisfy itself whether its interference is necessary to protect the party apply for such relief from the particular type of injury which it would call irreparable injury before the legal right of the party is established at the trial. Rule 2 of Order XXXIX of the C.P.C. while dealing with likelihood of injury postulates some injury must be threatened. Injury must be a legal injury and where it is alleged the court is put on an enquiry as to what the contents of the rights claimed by the person concerned. The next question to be considered is what would be comparable mischief and inconvenience that would result from a refusal of such an injunction.

It would transpire from the record that the land in dispute is plot no. 1363 which has been carved out from old plot no. 387. It would further transpire from the record that plot nos. 387/1 and 387/2 were purchased by petitioner's father by means of sale deed dated 17.12.1971. It would also transpire that in the settlement year, the total area of plot no.387/1 and 387/2 was recorded as 2 Bigha, 16 Biswas which now stands slashed to 1 Bigha 18 Biswas pursuant to order-dated 2.9.1979. Subsequently, it would further transpire, the land in dispute was recorded in the names of Satyawati wife of S.M.Sharma and R.K. Sharma father of the petitioner. Again thereafter, the father of the petitioner executed sale deed to the extent of 1,1/2 share in favour of Surendra Mohan Sharma. In this perspective, the wife of the petitioner namely, Satya Wati and his brother Surendra Mohan Sharma came to be recorded as Bhumidhar since the year 1979 and 4.7.1981 respectively. It is evident from the record that contesting Opp. parties purchased the property in dispute by means of sale deed dated 13.3.1969. In the course of arguments, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Opp. parties that petitioner's brother and wife Satya Wati executed sale deed in respect of old plot no. 387 in favour of other persons.

In view of the above, it brooks no dispute that petitioner is not recorded in the revenue record since 1971, and further that the father of the petitioner had no property on the date of his death and consequently, the petitioner did not inherit any property. Besides, the petitioner has not been able to produce before the Court any single document in order to prop up his title. It is also worthy of notice that records under section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were published in the year 1995 and there is no explanation forthcoming on record as to why the petitioner kept on sleeping over the matter and woke up to prefer objection in the year 2005. In the circumstances the prima facie case is not established nor any irreparable injury is likely to be occasioned to the petitioner and therefore, no balance of convenience leans in his favour for grant of interim relief. In my considered view, the Deputy Director consolidation rightly dismissed the revision and by any reckoning, there is no error of law apparent on the face of record.  

As a result of foregoing discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. In the facts and circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.

M.H.

9.3.2006

 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.