# Nehru Junior High School Taryasujan, Kushinagar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 450
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12362 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nehru-junior-high-school-taryasujan-kushinagar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50667
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Section 144 - Section 49 U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Declaratory Suit
- Maintainability - Trial Stage - Cause of Action
- Educational Institution - Revenue Court
Jurisdiction

Held:
Rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC in pending suit under Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - challenged - suit
filed by respondent no.5 claiming declaration of
rights over disputed land - petitioner, an
educational institution, asserted bar under
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- Trial Court rejected application; revision
dismissed - Held, plaint allegations disclose
cause of action - declaratory suits under Section
144 of U.P. Revenue Code are of special
character - issue of bar under Section 49
U.P.C.H. Act to be examined during trial - not a
case fit for rejection at threshold - petition
dismissed.

Cases Referred:

## Text

450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ambedkar Nagar/respondent no. 3, by
rejecting the application for correction of
map vide order dated 05.12.2022, failed to
discharge his statutory duty, which in the
present case relates to correction of map in
regard to error therein was indicated in the
reports submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Tanda
and Tehsildar, Tanda and the respondent no.
2, while dismissing the revision filed by the
petitioner vide order dated 06.03.2023,
failed to take note of relevant statutory
provisions and being so committed error in
law.

33. Accordingly, the impugned orders
dated
06.03.2023
and
05.12.2022
(Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the petition) are
set aside. The matter is remanded back to
Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar to decide the matter afresh by
passing reasoned and speaking order.

34. While deciding the case, the
Collector/District Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar is expected to take note of statutory
provisions according to which it is the duty
of the Collector to maintain the revenue
records including the map and to correct
'any error or omission' therein and
proceedings of correction of revenue
records including the map may be initiated
even without any application if 'any error
or omission' therein comes to the notice of
Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or
the Collector.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 450
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 12362 of 2023

Nehru Junior High School Taryasujan,
Kushinagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Sri Rituvendra
Singh Nagvanshi, Sri R.C. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anurag Tripathi, Sri Sudhir
Bharti, Sri Anoop Trivedi (Sr. Advocate)

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Section 144 - Section 49 U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Declaratory Suit
- Maintainability - Trial Stage - Cause of Action
- Educational Institution - Revenue Court
Jurisdiction

Held:
Rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC in pending suit under Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - challenged - suit
filed by respondent no.5 claiming declaration of
rights over disputed land - petitioner, an
educational institution, asserted bar under
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- Trial Court rejected application; revision
dismissed - Held, plaint allegations disclose
cause of action - declaratory suits under Section
144 of U.P. Revenue Code are of special
character - issue of bar under Section 49
U.P.C.H. Act to be examined during trial - not a
case fit for rejection at threshold - petition
dismissed.

Cases Referred:

1. Church of Christ Charitable Trust Vs
Ponniamman Educational Trust, Civil Appeal No.
4841 of 2012

2. Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs Syed
Jalal, Civil Appeal No. 5368 of 2017
8 All. Nehru Junior High School Taryasujan, Kushinagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
3. K. Akbar Ali Vs K. Umar Khan & ors., AIR
2021 SC 1114

4. Charu Kishor Mehta Vs Prakash Patel & ors.,
SLP (C) No. 11030 of 2022

5. Pan Kumari Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., 2005
(99) RD 529

6. Roshan Singh @ Bunti Vs Board of Revenue &
ors., 2019 (145) RD 411

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.S.
Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioner,
Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned
counsel for respondent no.5, Sri Abhishek
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for state-respondents and Sri
Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for Gaon
Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one
Naipal and Raghunath sons of Dev
Narayan were bhumidhar in possession of
old plot nos. 43/1.93, 44/1.64, 54/.50,
55/.48, and 56/.48 New No. 514, 515, 529.
The recorded tenure holders as mentioned
above transferred the aforesaid plots to the
Junior High School Tarya Sujan, District
Deoria (now district Kushinagar) vide
registered sale deed dated 09-08-1965.

3. On the basis of the aforementioned
sale deed dated 09-08-1965 name of the
college was accordingly recorded in the
revenue records. The village in question
where the aforementioned plots were
situated was brought under consolidation
operation by means of notification issued
under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as U.P.
C.H. Act). Basic year entry according to
petitioner was in the name of petitioner and
no objection under Section -9A (2) of U.P.
C.H. Act was filed by anybody but
according to respondent no.5 her husband
was recorded in the basic year of
consolidation but petitioner got his name
recorded fraudulently subsequent to C.H.
form 23 stage without any basis..

4. According to petitioner the name of
the contesting respondent no.5 or her
predecessor-in-interest was not recorded in
the revenue records at any point of time
over the plots in dispute.

5. Respondent no.5 filed a suit under
Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 for declaration in respect of the plots
in dispute which was numbered as Case
No. T201905440303976, stating that plots
in dispute was self-acquired property of her
husband (Raj Kishore) and after the death
of her husband in the year 2011, she came
in possession of the plots in dispute.

6. The Trial Court vide ex-parte
judgment dated 26-07-2019 decreed the
plaintiff's suit under Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

7. Petitioner filed an application under
Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure
Code (hereinafter referred as CPC) against
the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 2607-2019, which was allowed vide order
dated 16-12-2019 and the suit was again
restored to its original number for decision
afresh.

8. Against the order dated 16-122019, respondent no.5 filed an appeal
before the Appellate Court, which was
dismissed vide judgment and dated 05-042021.
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Petitioner filed an application dated
01-07-2022 before the Trial Court to
dismiss the suit as not maintainable as no
proceeding
has
been
taken
during
consolidation operation as such the suit
under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 is barred by Section 49 of the
U.P. C.H. Act.

10. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar vide order dated
26-08-2022 rejected the application filed by
the petitioner.

11. Against the order dated 26-082022 passed by the Trial Court, petitioner
filed a revision being Revision No.
C202205000001466
before
the
Commissioner
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur.

12. The aforementioned revision was
dismissed
by
Commissioner/respondent
no.2 vide order dated 24-03-2023, hence,
this writ petition.

13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for petitioner submitted that application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed
by petitioner in the pending suit has been
rejected in an arbitrary manner. He further
submitted that for deciding an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filing
of the written statement and framing of the
issue is not a condition precedence rather
plaint allegation is relevant. He further
submitted that if the suit is frivolous and is
barred by provisions of law, the same can
be considered at the very initial stage. He
further submitted that no objection under
Section 9 of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by
respondent no.5, as such the suit under
Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.
C.H. Act. He further submitted that
petitioner who is an educational institution
has been unnecessarily dragged into
litigation, as such the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by
petitioner should be allowed in view of the
provisions contained under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC .

14. Learned Senior Counsel for
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments in Church of Christ Charitable
Trust & Educational Charitable Society,
represented by its Chairman Vs. M/S
Ponniamman
Educational
Trust
represented by its Chairperson/Managing
Trustee in Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP (c) NO. 30632 of
2011) dated 03-07-0212 ; Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal in
Civil Appeal No. 5368 of 2017 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 35352 dated 1904-2017; K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan
and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1114 and Charu
Kishor Mehta Vs. Prakash Patel and
Others in Special Leave Petition © No.
11030 of 2022 dated 22-06-2022 on the
scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC .

15. On the other hand Sri Anoop
Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent no.5 submitted that suit
under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 filed by respondent no.5 is not
barred under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H.
Act. He further submitted that suit under
Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 are suit of special character, as such
the same cannot be dismissed without
framing issue and giving opportunity to the
parties to lead evidence. He further
submitted that the name of respondent no.5
was recorded in the revenue records up to
the preparation of CH- Form 23, but the
name of petitioner came in CH- Form 45 in
the
fraudulent
manner.
He
further
8 All. Nehru Junior High School Taryasujan, Kushinagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453
submitted that petitioner is claiming the
rights on the basis of sale deed, however,
the vendor of petitioner has died before the
alleged execution of sale deed in favour of
the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner
is not the rightful owner of the plots in
dispute as such the suit for declaration filed
by respondent no.5 cannot be dismissed as
not maintainable. He further submitted that
the claim of the petitioner can be very well
examined on merit as to whether the suit is
barred under Section 49 of U.P. C.H.Act or
not after framing issues in the suit. He further
submitted that after framing issues in the suit
the matter will be decided in accordance with
law including the issue relating to Section 49
of U.P. C.H.Act. He further submitted that
argument advanced by the counsel for
petitioner on the point of under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC is misconceived as the
allegation made in the plaint discloses the
cause of action for filing the suit under
Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
He further submitted that no interference is
required in the matter and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.

16. I have considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

17. There is no dispute about the fact
that the suit under Section 144 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondent
no.5
is
pending
before
the
Trial
Court/respondent no.3.. There is also no
dispute about the fact that application filed
by petitioner for dismissing the suit as not
maintainable being barred by Section 49 of
U.P. C.H. Act has been rejected by the
Trial Court and the order has been
maintained in revision.

18. In order to appreciate the
controversy a perusal of Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is necessary,
which is as under:

144. Declaratory suits by tenure
holders.-(1) Any person claiming to be a
bhumidhar or asami of any holding or
part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly
with any other person, may sue for a
declaration of his rights in such holding
or part.

(2) In every suit under subsection (1) instituted by or on behalf of-

(a) a bhumidhar, the State and
the [Gram Panchayat] shall be necessary
parties;

(b) an asami, the landholder
shall be a necessary party.

19. On the scope of Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006/Section 229-B of
U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act, this Court in the case
of Pan Kumari Vs. Board of Revenue,
U.P. at Allahabad and Others, reported in
[2005 (99) RD 529 has held that suit under
Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act are
the suit of special character and even no
limitation
is
provided
for
filing
a
declaratory suit before the Revenue Court.
The paragraph no.6 of the judgment is
relevant, which is as under:-

"6. Sri R.C. Singh submits that
the suit under Section 229-B was barred by
limitation. In support of this contention he
relies upon Section 341 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, which provides that the Limitation Act
would be applicable to proceedings under
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act and limitation in a suit for
declaration would be governed by Article
137 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act as
there is no period prescribed for such a suit
under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Section 341
itself provides that the provisions of certain
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Acts including the Limitation Act shall
apshall
remain
stayed.ply
to
the
proceedings under the U.P. Z.A. & L. R.
Act unless otherwise provided in the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Rule 338 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules provides that the
suits, applications and Ors. proceedings
specified in Appendix III shall be instituted
within the time specified therein for them
respectively. Recourse to the provisions of
the Limitation Act would be available only
if there is no provision under Rules in
respect of the period of limitation for the
different classes of suits or proceedings
mentioned therein. In Appendix III the
period of limitation provided for different
classes of suits has been given. As regards
suits under Limitation Act column 4, which
prescribes the period of limitation for
different classes of suit says "none". It
would therefore be treated that there is no
limitation for filing a suit under Limitation
Act. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code
provides that all suits of civil nature shall
be instituted in the civil court except those,
which have been accepted. A suit under
Section 229-B falls within the excepted
category and such suits even though they
involve declaration are suits of a special
character. Article 137 of the Limitation Act
relied upon by Sri Singh in any case is
applicable only to applications and not to
suits and therefore has no play. When the
rule
making
authority
has
provided
different periods of limitation for different
classes of suits it would be treated that
provisions prescribing period of limitation
in the Limitation Act would not be
applicable to suits under the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act. Section 189 U.P.Z.A.& L. R. Act
sets out the circumstances in which the
interest of a bhumidar is extinguished.
Clauses (a) (aa) and (b) relate to cases
where the bhumidar dies leaving no heir,
or where he has let out his holding in
contravention of the provisions of the Act
or where the land is acquired. Sub-section
(C) of Section 189 provides that where a
bhumidar
has
lost
possession
the
bhumidari right would extinguish when the
right to recover possession is lost. In Ram
Naresh vs. Board of Revenue, 1985 R.D.
444 relied upon by Sri R. C. Singh it was
held that the provisions of Section 27 of the
Limitation Act would be attracted to suits
instituted under Section 229-B. Section 27
provides that on the determination of the
period limited for instituting a suit for
possession the right to such property shall
be extinguished. The rule is an exception to
the general rule that limitation bars the
remedy but does not extinguish the right. If
however a person is in possession his right
can not be extinguished unless the case is
covered by Clauses (a) (aa) and (b) of
Section 189. He can therefore seek a
declaration of his right at any point of time.
If a person has been dispossessed he would
have to institute a suit under Section 209
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Appendix III provides
the period for limitation for filing a suit
under Section 209. It would follow
therefore that a suit under Section 229-B
would be barred by limitation the bhumidar
is out of possession and his right to file a
suit under Section 209 is barred by
limitation. The finding of fact recorded on
the question of possession is that the
plaintiffs have established their continuous
possession over the disputed land. The
finding is not shown to be vitiated by any
error. As the rights of the plaintiff were
never extinguished no question of limitation
arises. For the reasons given above the
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed."

20. The exercise of jurisdiction under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. in respect to the
suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act, this Court in the case reported in
8 All. Nehru Junior High School Taryasujan, Kushinagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
2019(145) RD 411 Roshan Singh @ Bunti
Vs. Board of Revenue and Others has held
that jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. is not to be utilised as a trial before
the trial. Paragraph No.6 of the judgment is
relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"6.This Court has perused the
plaint, a copy of which is annexed as
Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal
of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint
shows that the plaintiff has come forward
seeking declaration of his rights to Khasra
No.213, admeasuring 1 Bigha, 9 Biswa
and 6 biswansi situate at Village Kheda,
Pargana Dasna, District Hapur, (then
Ghaziabad) and to hold the Will dated
06.06.1977 void. The cause of action
clearly indicates that the petitioner alleges
fraud played upon him by the defendants.
It has been averred in paragraph-6 of the
plaint that the fact that the name of the
defendants had been recorded over the
property in dispute, was kept back from
the plaintiff until the month of May, 2006.
It is claimed that the plaintiff Charan
Singh, never knew it before the said date.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that he is a
co-sharer along with deceased, Balbeer
Singh through whom the defendants
claim, on the basis of a Will. It is also
averred in paragraph-8 that the entire
mutation proceedings, wherein the order
dated 18.11.1998 has been passed in
favour of the defendant, were all taken
behind his back. These are pleadings
which prima facie require to be examined
on the basis of evidence, even if the cause
of action is ultimately held to be barred by
limitation. It is not a case where on a
reading of the plaint, the cause of action is
ex facie barred by limitation. The law
about exercise of jurisdiction under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC is settled beyond the
slightest doubt. It is that, that allegations
in the plaint alone are to be seen, in order
to determine whether the plaint is to be
rejected, on any of the grounds mentioned
in Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The defence
put forward by the defendant or the
evidence is not at all to be considered. The
jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
is not to be utilized as a trial before the
trial.

21. In the instant case paragraph nos.
3 to 7 of the plaint of the suit under Section
144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are
relevant for perusal which are as under:-

"न्यायालय श्रीमान उपत्रजलात्रधकारी महोदय, तमकुहीराज,
जनपद- कुशीनगर।

वाद
संख्या-
T201905440303976
श्रीमती ज्ञान्ती देवी पत्नी स्व० राजत्रकशोर त्रनवात्रसनी मौजा- गड़त्रहया
पाठक, तप्पा हवेली, परगना

त्रस० जो० तहसील-
तमकुहीराज जनपद- कुशीनगर।

.......... (वात्रदनी)

3- यह त्रक वास्तत्रवक त्य यह है त्रक त्रववात्रदत भूखया
मूलरूप से हम वात्रदनी के पत्रत राज त्रकशोर पुने राधात्रकशुन की
तनहा पैदाकरदगी भूत्रम है। त्रजस पर वे अपने जीवनकाल तक
बहैत्रसयत तनहा भूत्रम धर कात्रबज दात्रखल एवं अध्यात्रसत थे तथा
उनके मृत्युपरान्त उनका तनहा वाररस होने के नाते वात्रदनी बहैत्रसयत
वाररस पत्नी वरासतन कात्रबज दात्रखल एवं अध्यात्रसत चली आ रही
है, जो कभी भी खत्रण्डत नही हुआ।

4- यह त्रक पूवा चकबन्दी त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड की पुरानी
भूखण्ड सं० 43/1.93 एकड़, 44/1.64 एकड़, 54/0.59
एकड़, 55/0.48 एकड़, अराजी सं० 56/0.48 एकड़ व
611/0.62 एकड़ था जो दौरान चकबन्दी जोत चकबन्दी आकार
पि 11 व जोत चकबन्दी आकार पि 23 भाग (I) मे भूखण्ड सं०
43/1/1.20 एकड़, 43/2/0.02 एकड़, 43/3/0.01 एकड़,
44/1/0.31 एकड़, 44/2/0.47, 54/1/0.38 एकड़,
44/3/0.33, 54/3/.08 एकड़, 55/1/0.25 एकड़,
55/3/0.05 एकड़, 56/1/0.5 एकड़, 56/3/0.25 एकड़,
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
व 56/4/0.02 एकड़ बना है। त्रजसकी नई वतामान भूखण्ड सं०
514/0.190 हे०. 515/0.942 हे० व 529/0.174 हे०
बना है, त्रजसे त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड कहा जा रहा है।

5- यह त्रक उक्त ग्राम की चकबन्दी की कायावाही बीत जाने
के काफी त्रदनों बाद वर्ा 2011 में हम वात्रदनी के पत्रत राजत्रकशोर
की मृत्यु हो गई तथा उनके मृत्युपरान्त वात्रदनी त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड पर
बहैत्रसयत तनहा भूत्रमधर मुतवाररत वरासतन कात्रबज दात्रखल एवं
अध्यात्रसत चली आ रही है।

6- यह त्रक त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड पर चकबन्दी पूवा के खतौनी में
तथा दौरान चकबन्दी आधार वर्ा की खतौनी, जोत चकबन्दी
आकार पि-1, जोत चकबन्दी आकार पि-23 भाग (प) एवं
उसके बाद के अन्य अत्रभलेखों मे वात्रदनी के पत्रत राजत्रकशोर का
नाम बहैत्रसयत तनहा भूत्रमधर अंत्रकत चला आया तथा अपने
जीवनकाल तक कात्रबज दात्रखल एवं अध्यात्रसत रहें।

7- यह त्रक चूंत्रक प्रत्रतवादी प्रथम पक्ष काफी चालाक एवं
मुकदमेबाज त्रकस्म के व्यत्रक्त है, त्रजन्होने त्रववात्रदत भूखण्ड को
हड़पने की त्रनयत से चकबन्दी अहलकारान को अपने सात्रजश में
करके जोत चकबन्दी आकार अत्रधकारी के आदेश के अपना नाम
अंत्रकत करा त्रलया तथा वात्रदनी के पत्रत राजत्रकशोर का नाम
अत्रभलेखों से हटवा त्रदया। त्रजसकी कतई कोई त्रवत्रधक पाबन्दी
वात्रदनी पर नही है एवं उसकी कतई कोई जानकारी हम वात्रदनी के
पत्रत राजत्रकशोर व वात्रदनी को नही हो पाई। इस प्रकार त्रववात्रदत
भूखण्ड पर त्रप्रतवादी प्रथम पक्ष का नाम खतौनी में ऋत्रटपूणा तरीके से
अंत्रकत चला आ रहा है।"

22. The aforementioned paragraph nos.
3,4,5 and 6 of the plaint discloses the cause of
action to the plaintiff to file suit for
declaration of her right under Section 144 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as such rejection of
plaint or dismissal of suit under Section 144
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 at the very
initial stage will be illegal.

23. So fas as the argument advanced by
the learned senior counsel for petitioner that
suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.
C.H. Act is concerned, the same shall be
considered during trial at a appropriate stage.
The petitioner will have full opportunity to
get the issue framed on the point of Section
49 of U.P. C.H. Act and to lead evidence on
the issue in accordance with law.

24. The case law cited by learned
senior counsel for the petitioner will not be
applicable in the circumstances of the case
as indicated above.

26. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as ratio laid down by
this Court in Pan Kumari (supra) and
Roshan Singh @ Bunti (supra), no
interference
is
required
against
the
impunged orders. The writ petition is
dismissed. However, the Trial Court shall
frame issue in the matter in accordance
with law including the issue of Section 49
of the U.P. C.H. Act and decide the suit
after giving opportunity to the parties to
lead evidence in accordance with law
expeditiously.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 21339 of 2020

Prakhar Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Jigar Khare, Sri
Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Sri Rahul
Chaubey, Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226
Petitioner
has
assailed
the
punishment of rustication imposed by the
respondents-University- Petitioner was never
served a charge-sheet containing a St.ment of
charges along with the adverse material which