- (1.) A. P. Sahi, J. These two writ petitions arise out of a common judgment on two separate applications filed by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey and the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava for release of a tractor which is subject matter of dispute between the parties.
(2.) THE facts as detailed in both the petitions, are that the tractor bearing Registration Number UP-66-C-9369 along with a trolley was purchased by one Hira Lal on 28. 8. 2003. THE said Hira Lal died leaving behind his widow Smt. Durgawati and his son as legal heirs and representatives. It is alleged that the said tractor was in service at the petitioner's brick kiln and was being used for loading, unloading and transportation of bricks. Mr. Ram Sajiwan Pandey, the father of the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey claims to have purchased the said tractor from the heirs of Hira Lal whereas respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava claims that he has purchased it from the heirs of late Hira Lal. It is contended that there were, documents in their favour indicating certification of ownership of the said tractor. The dispute arose when the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey informed the police on 26. 4. 2006 that the Tractor which was in the ownership of his father was stolen by the respondent No. 3 and his brother Rajesh and, therefore action should be taken against them. The respondent N -. o moved an application on 8. 5. 2006 before the learned Magistrate stating that the tractor had been lifted by the police from his door on 6. 5. 2006 and he also produced certain documents of registration alleging that the said tractor had been sold in his favour by the heirs of Hira Lal including his widow Smt. Durgawati Devi. This application was allowed by the Magistrate after calling for a report from the police. The police had submitted a report on 12. 5. 2006 indicating that the tractor had been recovered in an abandoned state. On the strength of the said police report, on the same day the Magistrate passed an order for release of the tractor in favour of Suresh Kumar Srivastava. Since (he tractor was not released by the police, immediately three days thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey for release of the said tractor in his favour and praying for recall of the order dated 12. 5. 2006 made in favour of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey clearly alleged that the said tractor has been purchased by his father and he became owner of the same after his death. The papers submitted by the respondent No. 3 were all fictitious and hence the order dated 12. 5. 2006 deserves to be recalled. On the same date, the respondent No. 3 moved an application stating that the police inspite of the release order in his favour had not handed over the tractor and, therefore, appropriate orders should be passed thereon. Faced with this counter claim the Magistrate vide order dated 15. 5. 2006 called for a report from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Gyanpur calling for the details of the actual status of registration of the said tractor and about the issuance of certificate as claimed by either of the parties. This document is Annexure 9 to W. P. No. 9499 of 2007. A perusal of the same indicates that specific details were wanted in respect of the documents produced by either side.
(3.) BEFORE the said queries were answered by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, a report was submitted to the Dy. S. P. , Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Kotwali, Gyanpur which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The said report clearly recites that the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava had applied for the transfer of ownership in his favour and that he had produced incorrect documents as a result whereof a duplicate registration certificate was issued to him. This report had been submitted in response to the complaint made by the petitioner on 26. 4. 2006 as indicated here in above. The Assistant Regional Transports Officer has also recommended that appropriate action should be taken against the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava and one Chandra Bali Maurya who had manipulated the issuance of the duplicate registration certificate on the basis of the incorrect documents. Having received these reports, the Dy. S. P. /circle Officer directed the Station House Officer, Gyanpur to lodge an F. I. R. against Chandra Bali Maurya and Suresh Kumar Srivastava and proceed against them. It is stated that the said proceedings are still pending against the respondent No. 3 and Chandra Bali Maurya. Thereafter a detailed report was submitted by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in response to his queries dated 15. 5. 2006. This report is dated 6. 6. 2006 and is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said report indicates that Hira Lal the original owner died on 28. 8. 2003 and from a perusal of the records of the file pertaining to the said vehicle as also the register regarding registration, it appears that the registration which was recorded on 15/16. 10. 2003 appears to have been got done irregularly. In view of this the registration in favour of Ram Sajiwan Pandey father of the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey is invalid and for the same reason the registration obtained by the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava on 18. 2. 2006 was also invalid. It further recites that this was done on account of the mistake of the concerned clerk and, therefore, both the registration obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar Srivastava deserve to be cancelled. This was followed by another police report dated 1. 7. 2006 which goes on to narrate different story that the file pertaining to the registration in favour of the father of the petitioner Anil Kumar Pandey is not available in the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and that there appears to be a file transacted in favour of Suresh Kumar Srivastava at the behest of widow of Hira Lal Smt. Durgawati. The said report also records that a receipt was issued in favour of Ram Sajiwan Pandey for deposit of tax Rs. 150/-Certain statements of the office of Regional Transport Officer were also recorded which further added to the confusion with regard to the transfer of ownership.;