Devi Prasad Singh - (1.) LIST has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) HEARD Sri K. C. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The suit under Section 176 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner. The said suit was decreed and final decree was prepared (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved against the final decree, the private respondent Sri Parshottam had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. The matter was heard by the Additional Commissioner (Admn.) who by the impugned order dated 24.3.2005, directed that the possession of plot No. 109Ka, shall not be delivered to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the present writ petition has been preferred. The solitary argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel is that Sri Parshottam (now substituted by legal heirs), is not aggrieved party. Hence, the appeal filed before the Commissioner, is not maintained. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) FROM the bare perusal of final decree, it appears that there is no reference with regard to plot No. 109Kha which admittedly, belongs to Parshottam. The final decree has been prepared in terms of judgment in original suit which contained various plots including plot No. 109Ka. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that during consolidation operation, the plot No. 109 was bifurcated in three plots namely, 109Ka, 109Kha and 109Ga. The submission is that the petitioner is owner of plot No. 109Ka and he does not claim right and title over plot No. 109Kha. According to petitioner's counsel, even if Sri Parshottam was not aggrieved party, the appeal filed by him is not maintainable. It is settled proposition of law that any person who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree, may prefer a statutory appeal before the higher forum. However, in the present case, it appears that Sri Parshottam was not an aggrieved party. The final decree does not contain any reference with regard to plot No. 109Kha. The Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Varanasi Region, Varanasi has also not recorded any finding as to how Sri Parshottam was an aggrieved party and in what manner the plot of Parshottam having plot No. 109Kha is affected by the final decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner does not have claim right, title or possession over the plot No. 109Kha. Since the final decree does not contain any reference with regard to plot No. 109Kha, the appeal filed by late Sri Parshottam does not seem to be maintainable. The Commissioner while passing the order dated 24.3.2005 has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him.;