# Nishant Poonia & Ors v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 99
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-08
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 847 of 2022
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nishant-poonia-ors-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-allahabad-ors-48958
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006-
Section 144 - Declaratory suits by tenure
holders - S. 146, Provision for injunction -
order of status quo - order of status quo
with regard to possession as well as nature
and character of the property be maintained
till the disposal of suit where the triable
issues have been raised - property in dispute
should be remained intact if a party has
raised triable issues in the declaratory suit
filed u/s 144 (Para 8, 9)

Regular suit has been filed by the petitioners
under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 and the application for temporary
injunction was filed under Section 146 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the trial Court
has only granted injunction to the effect that
the parties shall not sell the property in
dispute
-
Revisional
court
set
aside
injunction order - Held - Impugned revisional
order set aside - parties to the suit
restrained from creating any third party
interest on the property nor nature and
character of the property be changed so that
the property be remained intact during
pendency of the suit (Para 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Nishant Poonia & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
99

6. It must be grasped that
judiciary is respected not on account of its
power to legalize injustice on technical
grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do
so.

Making
a
justice-oriented
approach from this perspective, there was
sufficient cause for condoning the delay in
the institution of the appeal. The fact that
it was the 'State' which was seeking
condonation and not a private party was
altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of
equality before law demands that all
litigants, including the State as a litigant,
are accorded the same treatment and the
law is administered in an even handed
manner. There is no warrant for according
a stepmotherly treatment when the 'State'
is the applicant praying for condonation of
delay. In fact experience shows that on
account of an impersonal machinary (no
one in charge of the matter is directly hit
or hurt by the judgment sought to be
subjected to appeal) and the inherited
bureaucratic methodology imbued with
the note-making, file pushing and passingon-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less
difficult to understand though more
difficult to approve. In any event, the State
which represents the collective cause of the
community, does not deserve a litigantnon-grata status. The Courts therefore
have to be informed with the spirit and
philosophy of the provision in the course of
the
interpretation
of
the
expression
"sufficient cause". So also the same
approach has to be evidenced in its
application to matters at hand with the
end in view to do even handed justice on
merits in preference to the approach which
scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to
the facts of the matter giving rise to the
present appeal, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause exists for the delay. The
order of the High Court dismissing the
appeal before it as time barred, is
therefore set aside. Delay is condoned. And
the matter is remitted to the High Court.
The High Court will now dispose of the
appeal
on
merits
after
affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing to both
the sides."

9. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case as mentioned
above, writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 27.10.2021 passed
by the respondent No.4 in revision No.421
of 2019 and the orders dated 14.05.2016
and 06.10.2018 passed by the respondent
No.3 are hereby set aside. The matter is
sent back before the respondent No.3 to
decide the petitioner's revision on merit
after affording opportunity of hearing to
both parties expeditiously preferably within
a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before him.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 99
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 847 of 2022

Nishant Poonia & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri D.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mrs. Anita Srivastava, Sri Sunil
Kumar Singh
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006-
Section 144 - Declaratory suits by tenure
holders - S. 146, Provision for injunction -
order of status quo - order of status quo
with regard to possession as well as nature
and character of the property be maintained
till the disposal of suit where the triable
issues have been raised - property in dispute
should be remained intact if a party has
raised triable issues in the declaratory suit
filed u/s 144 (Para 8, 9)

Regular suit has been filed by the petitioners
under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 and the application for temporary
injunction was filed under Section 146 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the trial Court
has only granted injunction to the effect that
the parties shall not sell the property in
dispute
-
Revisional
court
set
aside
injunction order - Held - Impugned revisional
order set aside - parties to the suit
restrained from creating any third party
interest on the property nor nature and
character of the property be changed so that
the property be remained intact during
pendency of the suit (Para 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rahmullah & ors. Vs D.J., Siddhartha Nagar &
ors., reported in 1999 R.D. (Vol. 90) Page-1

2. Rishi Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; Writ-C
No.36341 of 2015; dated 7.7.2015

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

1. Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Anita
Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent
nos.4 to 6, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Sunil Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7-
Gaon Sabha.

2. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties the writ petition is
being disposed of finally at the admission
stage.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 was filed before the trial Court
by the plaintiffs-petitioners in respect of the
disputed Khasra No.105, 127 and 149, total
area 2.6450 hectare. An application for
interim relief under Section 146 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 was also filed and
learned trial Court granted interim order on
30th November, 2019 to the effect that the
authorities shall not alienate the property in
dispute, by the subsequent order dated
7.9.2020 after hearing the counsel for the
parties and even considering the provisions
contained under Section 146 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 has confirmed the
interim order dated 30th November, 2019
passed earlier. Against the order dated 30th
November,
2019,
defendants
filed
a
Revision before the Court of Commissioner
and learned Commissioner vide order dated
18th September, 2020 allowed the Revision
and set aside the order dated 7.9.2020 on
the ground that the plaintiffs are not
recorded in the revenue records, as such,
they are not entitled to the interim
injunction. Against the order of the
Commissioner
Court,
Revision
under
Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 was filed before the Board of
Revenue. The Board of Revenue by the
impugned order dismissed the Revision as
not maintainable, hence this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that regular suit under Section
144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed
in which triable issues have been raised and
under Section 146 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 application for temporary
injunction
was
filed
which
was
maintainable, accordingly, learned trial
8 All. Nishant Poonia & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
101
Court after considering the provisions of
the law has restrained the parties from
creating third party interest in respect of the
property in dispute and the order was even
confirmed by the trial Court after hearing
the counsel for both the parties but learned
Commissioner has illegally entertained the
Revision and set aside the interim order
from creating third party interest during
pendency of the suit proceeding which will
cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffspetitioners and the Board of Revenue has
not considered the petitioners' case in
accordance with law and dismissed the
Revision filed by the petitioners. Learned
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
upon the decision of this Court in
Rahmullah and Others Vs. District Judge
Siddhartha Nagar and Others, reported in
1999 R.D. (Vol. 90) Page-1, in which it is
held that order of status quo with regard to
possession as well as nature and character
of the property be maintained till the
disposal of suit where the triable issues
have been raised.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that the
petitioners have filed the suit on the
baseless grounds. The petitioners are not
recorded in the revenue records, even
during consolidation operation they have
not
raised
any
objection,
as
such,
petitioners are not entitled to any injunction
which will cause irreparable injury to the
defendants. Revision was rightly filed
against the order of injunction passed by
the trial Court and the Commissioner Court
has rightly set aside the injunction order in
the Revision filed by the defendantsrespondents. Revision filed by plaintiffspetitioners before Board of Revenue was
rightly dismissed. In support thereof,
learned counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court dated 7.7.2015 passed in Writ-C
No.36341 of 2015 (Rishi Kumar Vs. State
of U.P. And 3 Others), in which it is held
that the Revision can be maintained under
Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act
against the interim order passed by the
courts below on the application under
Section 229D of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

6. Considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties. There is no
dispute about the facts that the regular suit
has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 and the application for temporary
injunction was filed under Section 146 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the trial
Court has only granted injunction to the
effect that the parties shall not sell the
property in dispute.

7. Section 146 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 is as follows:

"146. Provision for injunction.-
If in the course of a suit under section 144
or 145, it is proved by affidavit or
otherwise-

(a) that any property, trees or
crops standing on the land in dispute is in
danger of being wasted, damaged or
alienated by any party to the suit; or

(b) that any party to the suit
threatens or intends to remove or dispose of
the said property, trees or crops in order to
defeat the ends of justice, the Court may
grant a temporary injunction, and where
necessary, also appoint a receiver."

8. Considering the provision of
Section 146 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as
well as the ratio of law laid down by this
Court in Rahamullah (supra) property in
dispute should be remained intact as
petitioners have raised the triable issues in
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the declaratory suit filed under Section 144
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

9. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances, the interest of justice will be
served if proceeding of the suit is expedited
and parties to the suit is restrained from
creating any third party interest on the
property nor nature and character of the
property be changed so that the property be
remained intact during pendency of the suit.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed, the impugned revisional order dated
2.3.2022 passed by respondent no.1 i.e.
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and
order dated 18.9.2020 passed by respondent
no.2 i.e. Additional Commissioner III, Meerut
Region, Meerut are set aside and direction is
issued to the trial Court to decide the Suit
No.03321 of 2019 expeditiously preferably
within a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before him without granting unnecessary
adjournment to the parties and till the
disposal of the suit, parties to the suit will not
create any third party interest in respect of the
property in dispute nor change the nature and
character of the property in dispute.

11. No orders as to the costs.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 102
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 1295 of 2022

Jodharam ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Firozabad & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Chandra Solanki

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Akhilendra Yadav, Sri Raj Kamal
Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act , 1953 - Section 48 - Revision-
Allotment
of
chak
proceedings
-
Comparative hardship - revisional court is
required to examine the comparative
hardship of both parties in the allotment
of chak proceedings, and as the last court
of fact, it should do so with the utmost
care and caution - Natural Justice -
decision arrived at by any authority
without giving any reason is a totally
arbitrary
decision
-
one
of
the
requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made - Held -
revision u/s 48 was allowed by the D.D.C.
through a cryptic order without giving any
reason, which is not in line with the
principles of natural justice - comparative
hardship of the parties has not been
considered, and the revision has been
allowed in a cursory manner - Revisional
court order quashed (Para 8)

Allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Mahabeer
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Jaunpur & ors., reported in
2005(99) R.D. page 65

2. Rajendra Singh & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., reported in 2005(99) R.D.
46

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

1. Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3
& 5 and Sri Raj Kamal Singh holding brief
of Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel
for respondent no. 4. With the consent of