- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Respondents 3 to 8 filed release application against respondents 6 to 9. In the release application petitioner filed an application for impleadment claiming to be real owner landlord. Impleadment application was rejected. Thereafter he did not pursue the matter further. Release application was ultimately allowed and release order was put in execution. In the execution petitioner filed objection which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2006, Bharosa Yadav v. Vindhya Vasni Devi. Objections were rejected on 9. 10. 2006 by Prescribed Authority/j. S. C. C. , Gorakhpur. Against the said order appeal was filed being Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007. Additional District Judge/special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Gorakhpur dismissed the appeal on 23. 10. 2008 hence this writ petition.
(2.) I do not find least error in the impugned orders. Petitioner did not pursue the matter further after rejection of his impleadment application in the release application hence he cannot raise any objection at execution stage. In the end learned Counsel for the petitioner stayed that a regular suit being O. S. No. 1249 of 1991 is pending which has been filed by the petitioner against all the respondents on the basis of title. The prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it may be directed that while deciding the suit, the Court concerned may not be influenced by the fact that property has been released in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 Smt. Vindhya Vasini Devi, Sml. Krishna Srivastava and Smt. Shiksha Srivastava. The prayer is quite reasonable hence accepted. The Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad, AIR 2001 SC 1 : 2000 SCFBRC 446, has held that question of title/landlordship is to be incidentally seen in eviction proceedings by J. S. C. C. Same principle will apply to proceedings before Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of the Act. Supreme Court has further held in the above authority that final decision on the question of title has to be left open to be decided by regular Civil Court. Accordingly, it is directed that the Court where O.-S. No. 1249 of 1991 is pending, while deciding the suit, shall not give any weightage to the fact that property in dispute has been released in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
(3.) WRIT petition is accordingly, disposed of. Suit may be decided very expeditiously as it is quite old. Petition allowed. .;