# Santosh Kumar & Ors v. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1560
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-17
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 523 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-ors-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-ors-51983
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226 - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Obligations of Litigants - Abuse of
Process of Court - Necessity of full
disclosure of facts and the duty to
approach the court with 'clean hands'.
Litigants who mislead or deceive the
court are not entitled to any relief. In
the instant case, petitioners filed copy of
an unregistered will for mutation, which
the
Tehsildar
after
highlighting
shortcomings rejected it. Petitioners in
the revision had not taken this ground
that they had not filed any unregistered
Will or the unregistered Will which was
filed by the petitioners is not the same
which was referred in the order of
Tehsildar. Petitioners filed a second
unregistered will of the same date,
rectifying all the shortcomings pointed
out by the Tehsildar. Held: This amounts
to nothing but cheating, fraud, and
misleading the courts, constituting an
abuse of process. The writ petition was
dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 (Fifty
Thousand Rupees) due to their conduct,
which misused the legal process. (Para
28, 31, 35)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
Manu/SC/0892/2012

## Text

1560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
duly executed by the appellant. The High
Court wrongly placed the burden on the
appellant and reviewed the order and heard
the matter on merits. The entire approach of
the learned Single Judge is not correct in
law."

22. Mere failure to cite a judgment does
not, in and of itself, render the original judgment
flawed. Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for
addressing every perceived deficiency or
oversight in the original judgment; rather it is a
narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors
glaringly evident on the face of the record.
Failure to cite a particular judgment does not
automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit
of the decision under question.

23. What is also surprising to me is that
although the ground taken by the Respondent to
withdraw their Special Leave Petition before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was liberty to approach
this Court since as per them the main question of
law was not decided by this Court in its judgment
on February 15, 2010, the said ground does not
find any mention in the instant review
application. The failure to articulate consistent
grounds for seeking review calls into question
the bona fides of the Respondent's application.
One would expect that if a significant aspect of
the case was left unaddressed in a prior
judgment, as alleged by the Respondent before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would be foremost
among the reason cited for seeking review. This
inconsistent
approach
adopted
by
the
Respondent could not be explained by them
before this Court.

24. At this point, my mind goes back to the
elegant words of Justice Krishna Iyer in P.N.
Eswara Iyer and Ors. -v- Registrar, Supreme
Court of India reported in (1980) 4 SCC 680.
Since the instant judgment began with his words
of wisdom, it is only fair that it ends with them
too:

".......... unchecked review has never
been the rule. It must be supported by proper
grounds. Otherwise, every disappointed
litigant may avenge his defeat by a routine
review adventure and thus obstruct the
disposal of the 'virgin' dockets waiting in the
long queuefor preliminary screening or
careful final hearing........."

Justice Krishna Iyer further stated:

"Even otherwise, frivolous motions
for review would ignite the 'gambling' element in
litigation with the finality of judgments even by
the highest court, being left in suspense. If, every
vanquished party has a fling at 'review' lucky dip
and if, perchance, notice were issued in some
cases to the opponent the latter-and, of course,
the former, -would be put to great expense and
anxiety. The very solemnity of finality, so crucial
to judicial justice, would be frustrated if such a
game were to become popular."

25. In light of the aforesaid discussion and
law, this Court finds no merit in the instant
review application preferred against the order
dated February 15, 2010. Accordingly, the same
is dismissed.

26. There shall be no order as to the
costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1560
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-B No. 523 of 2024

Santosh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
5 All. Santosh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1561
Anurag Srivastava, Manoj Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anshuman Singh, Dilip Kumar
Pandey, Karan Srivastava

Constitution of India, Article 226 - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Obligations of Litigants - Abuse of
Process of Court - Necessity of full
disclosure of facts and the duty to
approach the court with 'clean hands'.
Litigants who mislead or deceive the
court are not entitled to any relief. In
the instant case, petitioners filed copy of
an unregistered will for mutation, which
the
Tehsildar
after
highlighting
shortcomings rejected it. Petitioners in
the revision had not taken this ground
that they had not filed any unregistered
Will or the unregistered Will which was
filed by the petitioners is not the same
which was referred in the order of
Tehsildar. Petitioners filed a second
unregistered will of the same date,
rectifying all the shortcomings pointed
out by the Tehsildar. Held: This amounts
to nothing but cheating, fraud, and
misleading the courts, constituting an
abuse of process. The writ petition was
dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 (Fifty
Thousand Rupees) due to their conduct,
which misused the legal process. (Para
28, 31, 35)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
Manu/SC/0892/2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no.9 has filed a
short counter affidavit bringing on record
the copies of the sale deed and the memo of
revision filed by the petitioners, which is
taken on record.

2. The learned counsels for the parties
state that it would not be necessary to file the
detailed counter affidavit or the rejoinder
affidavit and the matter may be heard
finally, at this stage.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has also filed a certified copy of the memo
of revision preferred by the petitioners under
Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act,
1901) against the order of the Tehsildar
dated 21.01.2013, the same is taken on
record.

4. Heard Shri Anurag Shrivastava,
learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and Shri Anshuman
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 9.

5. Present petition has been preferred
with the following main reliefs:-

"i) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari thereby
quashing impugned judgment and order
dated 28.3.2024 passed by the opposite
party no.1 in Second Appeal No.56 of 2015
as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ
petition;

ii) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari thereby
quashing the impugned judgment and order
dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow
Mandal, Lucknow i.e, opposite party no.2 in
Appeal No.C20141000002607, judgment
and order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the
Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Raebareli i.e. opposite party no.5 in Case
No.233,
judgment
and
order
dated
11.3.2014
passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow
1562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mandal, Lucknow i.e. opposite party no.3 in
Revision
No.582/2012-13
as
well
as
judgment and order dated 21.1.2013 passed
by the Tehsildar Sadar, Rae-bareli ie,
opposite party no.5 in Case No.746 which
are contained in Annexure-10, 8, 5 & 3
respectively to the writ petition;

iii) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus thereby
directing the opposite parties no.1 to 6 not
to implement the impugned judgment and
orders as contained in Annexure- 14,10, 8,
5 & 3 respectively to the writ petition;"

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the
nephew of late Ram Gopal alias Gopal,
petitioner no. 2 is the wife of nephew of late
Ram Gopal and petitioner no. 3 is son of
petitioner no. 2.

7. It is further submitted that the
dispute in the present case is with regard to
Plot
Nos.
242/0.5369,
245M/0.0060,
261M/0.039, 262M/0.0080 and 5/0.264
situated at Village Kisunpur Ram Chandar,
Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rae Bareli.

8. It is further submitted that the
petitioners belong to the same family which
the late Ram Gopal belonged. Dispute is
with regard to the property belonging to the
late Ram Gopal. For convenience, the
pedigree is quoted hereinbelow:-

9. It is further submitted that
petitioners had come to know about the
unregistered
Will
dated
25.07.2003
executed by late Ram Gopal in favour of
Gurudeen, Santosh Kumar and Ayodhya
Prasad. After the demise of Ayodhya
Prasad, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 being the wife
and son of late Ayodhya Prasad respectively
step into the shoes of late Ayodhya Prasad.

10. After getting the copy of
unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003, the
petitioners moved an application before the
Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to
as, the Code, 2006) for mutation of their
names in the revenue records in place of late
Ram Gopal. The application preferred by the
petitioners was rejected by the Tehsildar by
order dated 21.01.2013. Against the said
order, petitioners had preferred a revision
which was also dismissed by judgment and
order dated 11.03.2014. Assailing the said
order, petitioners had approached this Court
by filing Writ Petition No. 10446 (M/B) of
2012, which was also dismissed by this
Court by its judgment and order dated
19.12.2012 with liberty to the petitioners to
avail appropriate alternative remedy for the
claim of title.

11. It is further submitted that after the
judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2012,
petitioners had preferred a Suit under
Section 229 (B) of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act,
1950), claiming their rights on the basis of
unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003. The
Suit of the petitioners was dismissed by
judgment and order dated 13.10.2014.
Against the said order, the petitioners filed a
First Appeal under Section 331 of the Act,
1950 with a specific pleading therein that the
petitioners had filed only four documents
5 All. Santosh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1563
before the Tehsildar and no unregistered
Will was produced before the Tehsildar but
the Tehsildar passed the order by referring
some unregistered Will. The said Appeal
preferred
by
the
petitioners
was
rejected/dismissed by the judgment and
order
dated
18.12.2014.
Against
the
judgment and order passed in the First
Appeal, the petitioners preferred a Second
Appeal under Section 331 (4) of the Act,
1950, which was also dismissed by
impugned order dated 28.03.2024 and thus,
feeling aggrieved, the present petition has
been filed before this Court impugning the
orders passed.

12. It is further submitted that the
Courts below had failed to appreciate or had
ignored the fact that the petitioners had
never filed any copy of unregistered Will
before the Tehsildar but the findings were
recorded by the Tehsildar in his order dated
21.01.2013 regarding the unregistered Will,
all the Courts below had decided the cases
against the petitioners on the basis of
findings given by the Tehsildar in the order
dated 21.03.2013 related to the unregistered
Will, which was neither filed by the
petitioners nor claim was on the basis of any
unregistered Will.

13. It is further submitted that the
unregistered
Will
produced
by
the
petitioners in the First Appeal filed under
Section 331of the Act, 1950 was never
proved and the findings have been given by
the Court up to the stage of Second Appeal,
whereas it is necessary that if any document
had been relied by the petitioners then it
should be proved hence, the orders passed
against the petitioners are bad in the eyes of
law and are liable to be quashed.

14. On the other hand, Shri Hemant
Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel
and Shri Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel
for the respondent no. 9 have submitted that
the petitioners since the very beginning
playing fraud with the Court by taking
different stands before the different Courts
or the authorities.

15. It is further submitted that the
petitioners had produced two forged
unregistered Wills of the same date and
when the first unregistered Will was not
accepted by the Tehsildar in the proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act, 2006 preferred
by the petitioners by assigning reasons for
not
accepting
the
unregistered
Will.
Thereafter the petitioners produced a second
unregistered Will of the same date removing
all the defects and came forward with a case
that before Tehsildar they had not filed any
unregistered Will on which the findings
were given by the Tehsildar and that too, the
said objection or ground was taken for the
first time at the stage of first appeal
preferred against the judgment and order
passed under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950
and prior to that, at no point of time, the
petitioners had raised such ground or plea in
any of the proceedings.

16. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have intentionally not enclosed
copy of revision preferred against the
judgment and order dated 21.01.2013
passed by the Tehsildar and the reason is
obvious that in the said revision, the
petitioners had not raised any such plea
which was taken at the time of filing of first
appeal. Copy of revision has been placed by
the respondent no. 9 before this Court by
filing a short counter affidavit as annexure
no. C.A.-2 of the said affidavit.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has also produced the certified copy of the
revision, which has also been taken on
1564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
record as is mentioned in preceding
paragraph of the judgment.

18. It is further submitted that the
petitioners are trying to grab the property of
widow lady i.e. their aunt, aunt-in-law, aunt
grandmother of the petitioners respectively.

19. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and going through the record of
the case, it is an undisputed fact between the
parties that the dispute involved in the
present writ petition is with regard to Plot
Nos.
242/0.5369,
245M/0.0060,
261M/0.039, 262M/0.0080 and 5/0.264
situated at Village Kisunpur Ram Chandar,
Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rae Bareli
belonged to late Ram Gopal, who was the
uncle of petitioner no. 1, uncle -in-law of the
petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 is the
grandson of brother of late Ram Gopal.

20. The issue which is to be
adjudicated in the present case is that
whether as per petitioners that they had
never filed any unregistered Will before the
Tehsildar and in absence of any unregistered
Will filed by them, how the findings were
given by the Tehsildar on the unregistered
Will dated 25.07.2003 and on the basis of
which, all the courts had drawn inference
against the petitioners and not believed the
unregistered Will of the same date. For
adjudicating these points, it is necessary to
reproduce certain documents.

21. Firstly, para no. 5 of the application
preferred by the petitioners under Section 34
of the Code, 2006, before the Tehsildar. The
said paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:-

"यह कक वादीर्ण के वपता की मृत्यु
के उपरान्त प्रनतपक्षी द्वारा जमीन बेचने की
िमकी देने पर वादीर्णों ने तहसील आकर
इन्तखाब खतौनी ली तो जानकारी हुई कक
वादीर्ण के वपता के नाम सांपूणग भूलम न दजग
होकर सहखातेदारी में सरजूदेई पत्नी राम र्ोपाल
का नाम दजग है। तब प्राथी ने अपने घर में वपता
के द्वारा रखे कार्जातों को देखा तो पता चला
कक चाचा र्ोपाल पुत्र बबरजू के द्वारा ललखी
अपांजीकृत वसीयतनामा टद० 25-07-2003 में
वादीर्ण
का
नाम
था
उक्त
अपांजीकृत
वसीयतनामा के आिार पर कोई वाद न तो
श्रीमान् जी के यहाुँ दाखखल ककया र्या था न ही
वादीर्णों का नाम कार्जात सरकारी में दजग
हुआ।"

22. The revision preferred by the
petitioners against the judgment and order of
the Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013, which is
filed as Annexure No. S.C.A. 2 of the short
counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no. 9 after tallying with the
certified copy of the same provided by
learned counsel for the petitioners. The same
is quoted hereinbelow:-

"न्यायालय श्रीमान् आयुक्त महोदय, लखनऊ
मण्र्ल, लखनऊ।
============================
==========
ननर्रानी सांख्या 582 वषग 2012-2013
अन्तर्गत िारा 219 भू-राजस्व अधिननयम
जनपद- रायबरेली।

1. सन्तोष कुमार पुत्रर्ण स्वर्ीय र्ुरुदीन
ननवासीर्ण ग्राम अटहयारायपुर,
2. अयोध्या प्रसाद परर्ना व तहील सदर,
जनपद-रायबरेली।

----------------------- --------------------------
ननर्रानीकतागर्ण
5 All. Santosh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1565
बनाम
श्रीमती सरजू देई तथा कधथत पत्नी र्ोपाल
ननवालसनी ग्राम ककशुनपुर रामचन्दर, परर्ना,
तहसील व जनपद-रायबरेली।
--------- ----------------- ववपक्षी

ननर्रानी अन्तर्गत
िारा 219 भू-राजस्व अधिननयम

ववरुद्ि आदेश
टदनाांक 21.1.2013 पाररत द्वारा श्रीमान्

तहसीलदार सदर,
जनपद रायबरेली बावत वाद सांख्या 746 अ०,
िारा 34 भू-राजस्व अधिननयम बमुकदमा
सन्तोष कुमार मौयग बनाम सरजू देई वववाटदत
भूलम र्ािा सांख्या 242 लम० रकबा 0.5360, 245
लम०/0.0060, 261 लम०/0.0390 व 262
लम०/0.0080 हे० जस्थत ग्राम ककशुनपुर,
रामचन्दर, परर्ना तहसील व जनपद-रायबरेली।

महोदय,

ननर्रानीकताग
उपरोक्त
ननर्रानी
श्रीमान् जी के समक्ष ननम्नललखखत तथ्यों, तकों
एवां आिारों पर प्रस्तुत कर रहा हैः-

1. यहकक उपरोक्त ननर्रानी में
प्रश्नर्त भूलम के मूल खातेदार र्ोपाल पुत्र बबरजू
थे जजनके कोई औलाद लडका, लडकी नहीां है।

2. यहकक उपरोक्त र्ोपाल पुत्र बबरजू
ने अपने जीवन काल में टदनाांक 25.07.2003 को
ननर्रानीकताग के पक्ष में एक वसीयतनामा
ननष्टपाटदत कर टदया था।

3. यहकक उपरोक्त र्ोपाल पुत्र बबरजू
की मृत्यु टदनाांक 16.11.2003 को हो र्यी उसके
बाद ननर्रानीकतागर्ण ने वसीयतनामें के आिार
पर एक नामान्तरण वाद परीक्षण न्यायालय के
समक्ष प्रस्तुत ककया।

4. यहकक उपरोक्त नामान्तरण वाद में
ववपक्षक्षनी द्वारा स्वयां को उपरोक्त र्ोपाल पुत्र
बबरजू की पत्नी बताते हुये एक आपवत्त प्रस्तुत
की र्यी।

5. यहकक
उपरोक्त
वाद
नायब
तहसीलदार
पजश्चमी
रायबरेली
के
समक्ष
ववचारािीन था तथा टदनाांक 2.2.2013 को सुनवाई
हेतु ननयत था।

6.
यहकक
ववपक्षी
द्वारा
एक
स्थानान्तरण
प्राथगन-पत्र
न्यायालय
उपजजलाधिकारी सदर, रायबरेली के समक्ष टदनाांक
31.12.2012 को प्रस्तुत ककया र्या जजस पर
उपजजलाधिकारी रायबरेली द्वारा उपरोक्त वाद
तहसीलदार सदर, रायबरेली के न्यायायलय में
स्थानान्तररत कर टदया र्या तथा सुनवाई की
नतधथ 2.2.2013 के स्थान पर टदनाांक 17.1.2013
कर दी र्यी इसकी कोई समन/सूचना अथवा
जानकारी ननर्रानीकताग को नहीां दी र्यी।

7. यहकक ववद्वान तहसीलदार सदर
द्वारा हस्तान्तररत वाद पत्रावली में ननर्रानीकताग
को बबना कोई समन/सूचना टदये टदनाांक
21.1.2013 की नतधथ ननयत कर दी र्यी।

8. यहकक टदनाांक 21.1.2013 को
तहसीलदार सदर, रायबरेली द्वारा एकपक्षीय रूप
से केवल आपवत्तकताग की बहस सुनकर टहतवद्ि
पक्षकार
की
भाांनत
व्यवहार
करते
हुये
ननर्रानीकताग का नामान्तरण वाद ननरस्त कर
टदया तथा ववपक्षी की आपवत्त स्वीकार कर ललया।

9. यहकक ववद्वान अवर न्यायालय
द्वारा पाररत आदेश टदनाांक 21.1.2013 ववधि
ववरुद्ि तथ्यों से परे तथा क्षेत्राधिकार से बाहर
होने के कारण ननरस्त होने योग्य है।
1566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
:: प्राथगना ::
=======

अतः न्यायालय श्रीमान् जी से ननवेदन
है कक अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली तलब करके
उसके परीक्षणोपरान्त ननर्रानी स्वीकार करते हुये
अवर न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत प्रश्नर्त आदेश
टदनाांक 21.1.2013 ननरस्त करने की कृपा करें।

अस्तु न्यायालय श्रीमान् जी से अधग्रम
ननवेदन यह भी है कक दौरान ननर्रानी अवर
न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत प्रश्नर्त आदेश टदनाांक
21.1.2013 का कियान्वयन व प्रभाव स्थधर्त
करने की कृपा करें।

लखनऊ
टदनाांकः- 23.01.13 अननल कुमार लसांह
एर्वोकेि
अधिवक्ता ननर्रानीकताग"

23. Paragraph no. 8 of the suit filed by
the petitioners under Section 229-B of the
Act, 1950, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

".यह कक प्रनतवादी सांख्या-1 ने फजी
तथ्यों के आिार पर राजस्व अधिकाररयों से
साठ-र्ाांठ करके अपने नाम प०क०-11 अांककत
करांवा ललया जजसकी जानकारी वादीर्ण को होने
पर वादीर्ण द्वारा तहसील आकर इन्तेखाब
खतौनी हालसल की तब वादीर्ण को जानकारी
हुई कक वादीर्ण के चाचा मृतक र्ोपाल के
स्थान पर जररये प०क०-11 सरजूदेई वविवा
र्ोपाल अांककत हो र्या था। वादी सांख्या-1
वापस घर आया और वादी सांख्या-2 से उक्त
बाबत बताया तब वादी सांख्या-2 ने कहा कक
वपताजी का एक बक्शा रखा है, चलो देखते हैं।
वपता जी के बक्से को खोलकर रखे कार्जात
को देखा तो उसमें अन्य कार्जातों के साथ एक
अपांजीकृत वसीयतनामा टदनाांक 25-07-2003
लमला जजसके आिार परां वादीर्णों ने दाखखल
खाररज व र्लत प०क०-11 को ननरस्त करने
हेतु प्राथगना-पत्र टदया जो नायब तहसीलदार
(दक्षक्षणी) के यहाुँ से स्थानान्तररत होकर
तहसीलदार महोदय के यहाुँ आयी, जहाुँ पर
तहसीलदार महोदय ने बबना वादीर्ण को सुने
हुए वाद को एकपक्षीय रूप से ननखणगत कर टदया,
जजसके ववरूद्ि माननीय अपर आयुक्त लखनऊ
मण्र्ल, लखनऊ में दाखखल की, जजसमें अपर
आयुक्त महोदय द्वारा दौरान ननर्रानी मौके
पर यथाजस्थत बनाये रखे जाने का आदेश पाररत
कर टदया। दौरान मुकदमा प्रनतपक्षी सांख्या-1 के
हाथ बबना कब्जा टदये भूलम हस्तान्तरण करने
की कफराक में है, जो ववधि-ववरूद्ि है और
ननरस्त ककये जाने लायक है।

24. Uptill this stage, the petitioners had
not come with a case before any of the courts
that they had not filed any copy of the
unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 before
the Tehsildar. For the first time, the plea or
the ground was taken in the first appeal
preferred by the petitioners against the
judgment/order passed under Section 229-B
of the Act, 1950 that they had filed only four
documents before the Tehsildar. The
relevant extract of the appeal preferred by
the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow:-

"रेस्पाण्र्ेण्् सांख्या-1 के पक्ष में दजग ककया
र्या उक्त अवैि इन्रराज अपीलाण्ि द्वारा िारा-34
भू० रा० अ० के तहत जररये अपांजीकृत वसीयतनामा
चैलेन्ज ककया र्या जो सुनवाई हेतु मुन्तककल होकर
के नायब तहसीलदार पजश्चमी तहसील रायबरेली के
समक्ष र्या। उक्त दाखखल खाररज वाद मे अपीलाण््स
की ओर से कुल चार प्रपत्र प्रस्तुत ककये र्ये थे :--
5 All. Santosh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1567

01 इांतेखाब खतौनी खाता सांख्या-30
फ० सन 1416-1421 ग्राम नछबलामऊ

02 इांतेखाब खतौनी खाता सांख्या-756
फ० सन 1414-1419 ग्राम ककशुनपुर रामचन्र

03 इांतेखाब खतौनी फ० सन 14141419 ग्राम ककशुनपुर रामचन्र

04 इांतेखाब खतौनी फ० सन 14041409 ग्राम नछबलामऊ

उक्त प्रपत्र अपीलाण््स की ओर से
फेहररस्त
टदनाांक
04.08.2012
को
समक्ष
न्यायालय तहसीलदार रायबरेली अपीलाण््स की
ओर से प्रस्तुत ककये र्ये थे। उक्त प्रपत्रो के
अनतररक्त अन्य कोई भी प्रपत्र दाखखल खाररज
प्राथगना पत्र के साथ अपीलाण््स की ओर से न
तो तहसीलदार न्यायालय के समक्ष और न ही
नायब तहसीलदार पजश्चमी तहसीलदार रायबरेली
के समक्ष वाद मे अपीलाण््स की ओर से प्रस्तुत
ककये र्ये थे।"

25. From the above mentioned relevant
paragraphs quoted from the application,
memo of revision and memo of appeal, it is
clear that the petitioners had never ever
taken this ground before any authority or the
court that no unregistered Will was filed by
the petitioners before the Tehsildar in the
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act,
2006.

26. The petitioners, when they had
come to know that they would not succeed
then for the first time in the first appeal had
taken a case or ground that before the
Tehsildar, no unregistered Will was filed
and also mentioned four documents which
were filed by the petitioners and produced
another unregistered Will of the same date
by rectifying the mistakes pointed out in the
order of Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013. The
relevant extract of the said order passed by
the Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013 is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"मैंने
आपवत्तकताग
के
ववद्वान
अधिवक्ता के तकों को सुना तथा पत्रावली का
सम्यक अनुशीलन ककया। ववद्वान अधिवक्ता का
कथन है कक प्रश्नर्त अपांजीकृत वसीयत जाली,
फजी कूि रधचत है। उनका यह भी कथन है कक
वसीयत में टदखाया र्या हालसया र्वाह की मृत्यु
वसीयत ननष्टपादन की नतधथ से पूवग हो चुकी थी
जजसकी ववरासत टद 04.1.xx को राजस्व अलभलेखों
में अांककत है। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्टि है
कक वादी द्वारा अपांजीकृत वसीयतनामा की छाया
प्रनत, इन्तखाब खतौनी ग्राम नछवलामऊ बाबत
1416-12 फ०खाता सां० 30, ग्राम ककशुनपुर
रामचन्दर की खतौनी सन 1414-1xx फ० खाता
सांख्या756 127, इन्तेखाब खतौनी ग्राम नछवलामऊ
सन 1404-1409 फ० खाता सांख्या 24दाखखल
ककया है। तथा प्राथगना पत्र ववरुद्ि पक। टद०5-304 तथा प्राथगना पत्र स्थर्न दाखखल ककया है।
पत्रावली
पर
रक्षक्षत
अपांजीकृत
वसीयत
नामा/छायाप्रनत के अवलोकन से स्पष्टि है कक उस
पर वसीयतकताग का फोिो भी नहीां लर्ा है। दावे
को साबबत करने का दानयत्व वादी को होता है
वादी द्वारा न तो अब तक मूल वसीयत दाखखल
की र्यी है और न मृतक र्ोपाल का मृत्यु प्रमाण
पत्र ही दाखखल ककया र्या है। इससे मैं इस
ननष्टकषग पर पहुुँचता हूुँ। वादी अपने दावे/अपांजीकृत
वसीयत की पुजष्टि न कराकर जानबूझकर
न्यायालय से अनुपजस्थत हो र्ये जजससे यही
प्रतीत होता है प्रश्नर्त अपांजीकृत वसीयत जाली
एवां फजी है। आपवत्तकताग श्रीमती सरजूदेई की
आपवत्त टदनाांक 29-11-12 स्वीकार ककये जाने
योग्य है।
1568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

आदेश

अतः आपवत्तकत्री श्रीमती सरजूदेई की
आपवत्त टदनाांक 29-11-12 स्वीकार की जाती है।
नामान्तरण प्राथगना पत्र साक्ष्यों द्वारा साबबत न
ककये जाने के कारण ननरस्त ककया जाता है।
पत्रावली बाद अन्य आवश्यक कायगवाही दाखखल
दफ्तर हो।"

27. Even in the revisional order, there
is a specific observation of the revisional
authority that the petitioners had relied upon
an unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003
which had various discrepancies as pointed
out by the Tehsildar even that was never
disputed by the petitioners. The relevant
extract of the revisional order is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"3- ननर्रानीकतागर्ण की ओर से
प्रस्तुत ललखखत बहस में ननर्रानी मेमो में वखणगत
कथनों को दोहराते हुए कहा र्या कक वादग्रस्त
भूलम के मूल खातेदार र्ोपाल पुत्र बबरजू थे, जजनके
कोई लडका-लडकी नहीां थे तथा उन्होंने अपने
जीवनकाल
में
टदनाांक
25.07 2003
को
ननर्रानीकताग के पक्ष में एक वसीयतनामा
ननष्टपाटदत कर टदया था। र्ोपाल की टदनाांक
16.11.2003 को मृत्यु हो जाने के बाद
ननर्रानीकतागर्ण ने वसीयतनामे के आिार पर
परीक्षण न्यायालय में नामान्तरण वाद योजजत
ककया, जजसमें ववपक्षी द्वारा स्वयां को र्ोपाल पुत्र
बबरजू की पत्नी बताते हुए एक आपवत्त प्रस्तुत
की र्यी, जो नायब तहसीलदार (पजश्चमी),
रायबरेली के समक्ष ववचारािीन था। ववपक्षी द्वारा
उपजजलाधिकारी, सदर, रायबरेली के न्यायालय में
स्थानान्तरण प्राथगना-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने पर
प्रश्नर्त वाद को तहसीलवार, सदर, रायबरेली के
न्यायालय
में
स्थानान्तररत
ककया
र्या।
ननर्रानीकतागर्ण का कथन है कक अिीनस्थ
न्यायालय द्वारा उसे बबना कोई सूचना टदये
एकपक्षीय रूप से प्रश्नर्त नामान्तरण वाद
टदनाांक 21.01.2013 को ननरस्त कर टदया र्या।
उनका कथन है कक ननर्रानी स्वीकार करते हुए
अिीनस्थ न्यायालय का प्रश्नर्त आदेश ननरस्त
ककया जाय।

4- ववपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत ललखखत बहस
में मुख्य रूप से यह कहा र्या है कक
ननर्रानीकतागर्ण द्वारा अपांजीकृत वसीयतनामा
टदनाांक 25.07.2003 के आिार पर मूल खातेदार
की मृत्यु के बाद लर्भर् 9 वषों के बाद टदनाांक
04.08.2012 को नामान्तरण वाद प्रस्तुत ककया
र्या। उक्त वाद में इश्तेहार जारी होने पर सरजू
देई द्वारा टदनाांक 29.11.2012 को आपवत्त प्रस्तुत
की र्यी। प्रस्तुत वसीयत में प्रथम पृष्टठ पर
वसीयतकताग व र्वाहों के हस्ताक्षर भी नहीां हैं
तथा वसीयत के तथाकधथत दूसरे र्वाह जर्दीश
मौयग पुत्र रघुनन्दन र्ौयग की मृत्यु वसीयत की
नतधथ से पूवग ही हो र्यी थी। प्रस्तुत की र्यी
इसललए उक्त नतधथ के बाद प्रारजम्भक रूप से
अपांजीकृत फजी कूिरधचत वसीयत के आिार पर
नामान्तरण वाद प्रस्तुत ककया र्या। उनका कथन
है कक अिीनस्थ न्यायालय का प्रश्नर्त आदेश
र्ुण-दोष के आिार पर पाररत ककया र्या है, जो
पूणगतया ववधिसम्मत है। उनके द्वारा 2000आरर्ी-पेज-10,
1997-एएलआर-पेज-448
तथा
2012-आरएलिी-पेज-561 व 2007 (103) आरर्ी-
पेज-48 पर मा० राजस्व पररषद एवां मा० उच्च
न्यायालय द्वारा दी र्यी ववधि व्यवस्था का
सन्दभग टदया र्या।

5- अिीनस्थ न्यायालय के प्रश्नर्त
आदेश एवां पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्टि है कक
नामान्तरण
न्यायालय
द्वारा
ननयमानुसार
5 All. Santosh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors.
1569
इश्तेहार जारी ककये र्ये, जो बाद तामील वापस
पत्रावली है। इस्तेहार जारी होने के उपरानत
श्रीमती सरजू देई पत्नी र्ोपाल द्वारा आपवत्त
दाखखल की र्यी। अिीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा
पत्रावली पर रक्षक्षत अपांजीकृत वसीयतनामा का
अवलोकन पर यह पाया र्या कक वसीयत पर
वसीयतकताग का फोिो नहीां लर्ा है। दावे को
साबबत करने का दानयत्व वादी का होता है। वादी
द्वारा न तो मूल वसीयत दाखखल की र्यी और
न ही मृतक र्ोपाल का मृत्यु प्रमाण-पत्र दाखखल
ककया र्या। इस प्रकार वादी अपने दावे/अपांजीकृत
वसीयत की पुजष्टि न कराकर जानबूझकर
न्यायालय से अनुपजस्थत हो र्ये, जजससे यह
प्रतीत होता है कक प्रश्नर्त अपांजीकृत वसीयत
जाली एवां फजी है। तद्नुसार अिीनस्थ न्यायालय
द्वारा अपने आदेश टदनाांक 21.01.2013 द्वारा
आपवत्तकताग श्रीमती सरजू देई की आपवत्त को
स्वीकार ककया र्या तथा नामान्तरण प्राथगना-पत्र
साक्ष्यों द्वारा साबबत न ककये जाने के कारण
ननरस्त ककया र्या। अिीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा
पाररत प्रश्नर्त आदेश पूणगतया ववधि, साक्ष्य एवां
तथ्यों पर आिाररत है, जजसमें ककसी प्रकार के
हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीां है। अतएव
ननर्रानी बलहीन होने के कारण ननरस्त ककये
जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

तद्नुसार ननर्रानी बलहीन होने के
कारण ननरस्त की जाती है। आदेश की एक प्रनत
सटहत अिीनस्थ न्यायालय की पत्रावली वापस
भेजी जाये तथा बाद आवश्यक कायगवाही इस
न्यायालय की पत्रावली अलभलेखार्ार में दाखखलदफ्तर हो।

टदनाांकः 11-03-2014"

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in Manu/SC/0892/2012
has laid down some principles which would
govern the obligations of a litigant while
approaching the Court for redressal of any
grievance and the consequences of abuse of
process of Court. The relevant extract of
para no. 29 of the said judgment is being
reproduced hereinbelow:-

"29. Now, we shall deal with the
question whether both or any of the
Petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of
suppression
of
material
facts,
not
approaching the Court with clean hands,
and thereby abusing the process of the
Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, let us
refer to some case laws which would help us
in dealing with the present situation with
greater precision. The cases of abuse of the
process of court and such allied matters
have been arising before the Courts
consistently. This Court has had many
occasions where it dealt with the cases of
this kind and it has clearly stated the
principles that would govern the obligations
of a litigant while approaching the court for
redressal of any grievance and the
consequences of abuse of the process of
court. We may recapitulate and state some
of the principles. It is difficult to state such
principles exhaustively and with such
accuracy that would uniformly apply to a
variety of cases. These are:

(i) Courts have, over the centuries,
frowned upon litigants who, with intent to
deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated
proceedings without full disclosure of facts
and came to the courts with 'unclean hands'.
Courts have held that such litigants are
neither entitled to be heard on the merits of
the case nor entitled to any relief.
1570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) The people, who approach the
Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are
under a contract with the court that they
would state the whole case fully and fairly to
the court and where the litigant has broken
such faith, the discretion of the court cannot
be exercised in favour of such a litigant.

(iii) The obligation to approach
the Court with clean hands is an absolute
obligation
and
has
repeatedly
been
reiterated by this Court.

(iv) Quests for personal gains
have become so intense that those involved
in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood and misrepresent and suppress
facts in the court proceedings. Materialism,
opportunism and malicious intent have
over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative
values for small gains.

(v) A litigant who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches
the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or
final.

(vi) The Court must ensure that its
process is not abused and in order to
prevent abuse of the process the court, it
would be justified even in insisting on
furnishing of security and in cases of serious
abuse, the Court would be duty bound to
impose heavy costs.

(vii) .......

(viii) ......

 (emphasis supplied)

29. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is found
that the petitioners had filed false affidavits
before the courts just to grab the property of
a widow lady and mislead the Courts at
every stage, even in the present writ petition.

30. The petitioners are not only
cheating or deceiving the widow lady that is
the wife of Late Ram Gopal but also
misleading the Courts and concealed the
relevant facts by not enclosing the copy of
revision.

31. Petitioners had filed the copy of
unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 which
was duly considered by the Tehsildar and
pointed out the shortcomings due to which it
was not accepted while rejecting the claim
of the petitioners. Petitioners in the revision
had not taken this ground that they had not
filed
any
unregistered
Will
or
the
unregistered Will which was filed by the
petitioners is not the same which was
referred in the order of Tehsildar. This
shows that the second unregistered Will of
the same date by rectifying all the short
comings as pointed out by the Tehsildar is
nothing but amounts to cheating, playing
fraud, misleading the Courts and also
amounts to abuse of process of the Court.
The unregistered Will which was produced
by the petitioners before the Tehsildar was
not found to be acceptable by the Tehsildar
then there is no question to prove the second
unregistered Will prepared by the petitioner
afterthought.

32. It is also the petitioners, who had
not placed any document or application at
the appellate stage for accepting the
additional documents as an evidence by
filing a second unregistered Will prepared
afterthought of the same date under Order
XLI Rule 27 C.P.C.

33. It was the duty of the petitioners to
prove the unregistered Will which they had
not even tried since it appears that the
petitioners were aware that the unregistered
Will was not genuine and they would not
able to prove it.

34. In view of the aforesaid facts,
circumstances and discussion made
5 All. Rajesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1571
hereinabove, it is found that there is no
illegality in the impugned orders dated
28.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1,
impugned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by
the respondent no. 2, impugned order dated
13.10.2014 passed by the respondent no. 5,
impugned order dated 11.03.2014 passed by
the respondent no. 3 and judgment and order
dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent
no. 5, thus, no interference is called for.

35. Writ petition is devoid of merits
hence, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rs. Fifty Thousand), in view of their
conduct which resulted in misuse of process
of law. The amount of cost is to be deposited
before the Senior Registrar of this Court
within a period of three months from today.
Failing which, the Senior Registrar is
directed to require the authorities to recover
the same as arrears of land revenue.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1571
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 4483 of 2024

Rajesh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Veerendra Kumar Tiwari, Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari

Civil Law -appeal challenging the order of
cancellation of fair price shop allowedpetitioner is the subsequent allottee of the
fair price shop-subject to the final outcome
of any case pending in any court of law-no
impleadment application was filed by the
petitioner-validity of the cancellation order
can very well be decided even if in absence
of a person who was allotted the shop
subsequent cancellation of the fair price
shop agreement of another subsequent
allottee-petitioner was not a necessary
party- petition dismissed. (Paras 17 to 19)

HELD:
It is relevant to note that in the present case,
after cancellation of the fair price shop license of
the respondent no. 4, the shop was not allotted
to the petitioner, rather it was allotted to one
Dharamraj. After cancellation of the Fair Price
Shop Agreement of Dharamraj, the shop in
question was allotted to the petitioner wherein it
was specifically mentioned that the appointment
of the petitioner will be subject to the final orders
to be passed in any case pending before the
Competent Court. (Para 18)

The appeal was filed challenging the legality
of the cancellation of the order dated
13.04.2016 and the validity of the cancellation
order dated 13.04.2016 can very well be
decided even if in absence of a person who
was allotted the shop subsequent cancellation
of the fair price shop agreement of another
subsequent allottee. It was open to the
petitioner to have appeared in the appeal and
sought a right of hearing, but he did not do
so. In such circumstances the impugned order
dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Food),
Ayodhya
Division,
Ayodhya cannot be held to be bad in law for
want of impleadment of the petitioner as a
necessary party to the appeal. (Para 19)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.: 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1312 = AIR 2022 SC 4705

2. Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v.
Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd.,
(2010) 7 SCC 417

3. Urmila Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All
3910