Kali Charan Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Agra and Others

Kali Charan vs Additional District Magistrate, Agra and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 17, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475778

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/475778
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.K. Seth, J.
Decided On: Feb 17, 2000
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 23383 of 1993
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Property - ascertainment of right - Article 226 of Constitution of India and Sections 120B (4A), 120B (4D) and 120B (4E) and 122B (4D) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Collector passed Order on revision under Sub-section (4A) of Section 120B - Order challenged by petitioner - question of fac...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 120B (4A), (4C), (4D), (4E) and 122B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kali Charan

Advocate A.S. Diwakar, Adv.

Respondent

Additional District Magistrate, Agra and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 120B (4A), (4C), (4D), (4E) and 122B
Cases Referred: Shambhoo Nath v. Chief Revenue Officer
Reported In: 2000(2)AWC1669

Excerpt

property - ascertainment of right - article 226 of constitution of india and sections 120b (4a), 120b (4d) and 120b (4e) and 122b (4d) of u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950 - collector passed order on revision under sub-section (4a) of section 120b - order challenged by petitioner - question of fact is to be decided - suit filed by aggrieved party under sub-section 4d of section 122b - suit barred because revision preferred earlier to collector - right relating to property cannot be ascertained by court -alternative remedy available. - - disputed question of fact can best be decided in a suit which is an appropriate remedy and writ cannot be maintained......as the 'act') has been challenged. the question involves disputed question of fact which can be established by a person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4a) of section 122b of the act, in a suit in terms of subsection (4d) of the said act.2. sub-section (4d) of section 122b of the u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act prescribes that any person aggrieved by the order of the assistant collector or collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property. sub-section (4e) does not preclude filing of suit against the order of collector passed under subsection (4a) of section 122b of the act, though it precludes a suit against the order passed by the assistant collector, if revision is preferred to the collector under sub-section (4a). 3. in the case of kajoda v. asstt. collector, finance and revenue mathura and others, 1996 (2) awc 1042 :1996 acj 620, it was held that order under section 122b of the act can be challenged in a suit under sub-section (4d) of section 122b of the act. if a revision is filed, suit is barred. but the order in revision can be challenged in suit in view of subsection (4e) of section 122b of the act. disputed question of fact can best be decided in a suit which is an appropriate remedy and writ cannot be maintained.4. in the case of babu lal v. collector, jhansi, 1997 alj 13, it was held that the order of the collector under sub-section (4a) of section 122b of the act is final but subject to sub-sections (4d) and (4e). subsection (4d) enables the aggrieved party to file suit for establishing title. sub-section (4e) is not a bar in challenging order under sub-section (4a). there is no contradiction in subsections (4c), (4d) and (4e).5. in the case of shambhoo nath v. chief revenue officer/addl. collector. allahabad. 1996 (3) awc 1432, it was held that in a proceeding under section 122b of the act. if title is.....

Full Judgment

D. K. Seth, J.

1. In this petition orders passed on revision under subsection (4A) of Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') has been challenged. The question involves disputed question of fact which can be established by a person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4A) of Section 122B of the Act, in a suit in terms of subsection (4D) of the said Act.

2. Sub-section (4D) of Section 122B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prescribes that any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this Section may file a suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property. Sub-section (4E) does not preclude filing of suit against the order of Collector passed under subsection (4A) of Section 122B of the Act, though It precludes a suit against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, if revision is preferred to the Collector under sub-section (4A).

3. In the case of Kajoda v. Asstt. Collector, Finance and Revenue Mathura and others, 1996 (2) AWC 1042 :1996 ACJ 620, it was held that order under Section 122B of the Act can be challenged in a suit under sub-section (4D) of Section 122B of the Act. If a revision is filed, suit Is barred. But the order in revision can be challenged in suit in view of subsection (4E) of Section 122B of the Act. Disputed question of fact can best be decided in a suit which is an appropriate remedy and writ cannot be maintained.

4. In the case of Babu Lal v. Collector, Jhansi, 1997 ALJ 13, it was held that the order of the Collector under sub-section (4A) of Section 122B of the Act is final but subject to sub-sections (4D) and (4E). Subsection (4D) enables the aggrieved party to file suit for establishing title. Sub-section (4E) is not a bar in challenging order under sub-section (4A). There is no contradiction in subsections (4C), (4D) and (4E).

5. In the case of Shambhoo Nath v. Chief Revenue Officer/Addl. Collector. Allahabad. 1996 (3) AWC 1432, it was held that in a proceeding under Section 122B of the Act. if title is involved, the same can be conclusively determined In suit. Subsection (4E) Is not an absolute bar. Sub-section (4D) enables filing of suit by aggrieved person, against both orders subject to sub-section (4E). There is no contradiction in the respective sub-sections. Sub-section (4EJ makes it clear that a suit against order under sub-section (4A) is maintainable.

6. Since the Collector has passed the Order under sub-section (4A). the embargo provided in subsection (4EJ is not attracted. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in view of adequate alternative remedy. Inasmuch as sitting in writ Jurisdiction it is not possible for this Court to ascertain the question of title relating to the property. It will be open to the petitioner to file a suit within a period of three months from today, if he is so advised. However, Interim orders, if any passed in this petition shall continue for a period of three months from date. It will be open to the petitioner to seek advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if circumstances so demand.

7. This writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with the aforesaid observation.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2000 Same Parties Kali Charan vs Additional District Magistrate, Agra and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge D.K. Seth, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari ...

Property