High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Barfia v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 43354 of 2006  RD-AH 13381 (11 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43354 of 2006
Barfia Devi ........Petitioner
State of U.P. & Others........Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 dismissing the restoration application filed by the petitioner to recall the earlier order dated 20.9.2005.
The facts are that in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act pending before respondent no. 4, an application was moved by contesting respondents no. 5 and 6 for being substituted in place of their deceased father Bihari. The said application was allowed vide order dated 12.3.2004, against which the revision was filed by one Ram Bharoshe in whose favour the petitioner had transferred the property in dispute. The revisional court vide order dated 30.6.2005 allowed the revision in part and set aside the order dated 12.3.2004 and remanded the case back to respondent no. 4 to decide the application dated 17.2.2004 afresh on merits after notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The Petitioner filed an application dated 20.9.2005 to recall the same on the ground that no notice of revision was issued to her and the order has been passed ex parte without hearing her. Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 16.6.2006 dismissed the said application, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the case has been remanded back to the respondent no. 4 to be decided afresh after hearing the parties concerned and it shall be open to the petitioner to place her case there. Proceedings between the parties are under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which are summary in nature. The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to substitution of the contesting respondents no. 5 and 6 in place of their deceased father. This dispute was remanded back by respondent no. 2 to be decided afresh after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties. The application filed by the petitioner to recall the order of remand passed by respondent no. 2 has been dismissed on the ground that it shall be open to the petitioner to place her case before respondent no. 4.
In view of aforesaid facts, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.