High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rahis Pal v. Vipin Babu Agrawal - WRIT - A No. 18439 of 2006  RD-AH 7242 (4 April 2006)
Court No. 28
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18439 of 2006
Vipin Babu Agrawal
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri P. K. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner.
The brief facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under:
The father of the respondent filed S.C.C Suit No. 7 of 1991 against the petitioner and one Jaipal for eviction from the accommodation in dispute on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting. During the pendency of the proceedings one Kanhaiya Lal son of Latoor Mal moved an application ` under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded, claiming himself to be landlord/owner of the accommodation in dispute on the basis of a will said to have been executed in his favour by one Badri Prasad. The application was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner also moved an application seeking amendment in his written statement to the effect that the plaintiff was not the true owner / landlord of the accommodation in dispute. The amendment application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 30.7.2005. During the pendency of the amendment application Ram Babu Agrawal died. An application was moved by the respondent for being substituted in his place. Thereafter, another amendment application was moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement by adding a paragraph that the sale deed on the basis of which Sri Ram Babu Agrawal claimed title of the premises in dispute was declared as void by order dated 10.2.1992 said to have been passed by the Chairman, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura in appeal no. 9 of 1990-91 which was confirmed by the Joint Secretary, State of U.P. vide order dated 22.3.1993. The trial court vide order dated 9.3.2006 dismissed the same. Two orders dated 30.7.2005 as well as 9.3.2006 rejecting the two amendment applications have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
I have perused the two impugned orders. Earlier amendment application was rejected by the Court below on the finding that once the petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant he cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission by bringing an amendment and that too at the stage of evidence. In so far as, the second amendment application is concerned the same was dismissed by the trial court on the finding that the proceedings before the Chairman of the Development Authority were with regard to certain unauthorized constructions made on the land without proper sanction of the map. The trial court has rightly held that the Development Authorities have no jurisdiction to declare any sale deed void and it can only be done by a competent court of law.
I have also perused the order dated 10.2.1992 passed by Chairman, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura and order dated 22.3.1993 passed by the Joint Secretary, State of U.P. that have been filed as Annexure 11 and 12 to the writ petition. It is clear from the perusal of the said orders that the proceedings were with regard to certain unauthorized constructions made without proper sanction of map and of compounding. The said authorities had neither any jurisdiction to comment over the validity of the sale deed nor the same has been declared void in the said orders as asserted by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the amendment applications filed by the petitioner.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.