After 27 years of partition, S.D.M. Sadar ordered partition, litigant has sold more than half of its property

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
After 27 years of partition by mutual consent S.D.M. Sadar again ordered partition when litigant has sold more than half of its property.
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 21 March 2019 at 16:17

To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>

An application under Article 32 of the constitution of the India on behalf of Om Prakash Dubey S/O Aditya Narayan Dubey living below poverty line and B.P.L. Card holder issued by the government of Uttar Pradesh.
To

                           Hon’ble chief justice of India /companion judges
                                 Supreme court of India, New Delhi, India
Petitioner-Yogi M. P. Singh Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road 
District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh Pincode-231001 
                                        Versus 
Respondent-1-Joint Magistrate ,S.D.M. Sadar 
Arvind Kumar Chauhan, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
2- District Magistrate 
District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
Prayer-Unfair and arbitrary proceedings by the aforementioned Joint Magistrate so impugned order passed by the aforementioned respondent 1 on 22/03/2018 required to be quashed in larger public interest as it would set up bad precedent in future. Detail of the suit is as follows.

Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Partition made 27 years ago with mutual consent, now sub judice under the court of S.D.M. after 27 years.  Most surprising, when litigant has sold more than one half of its entire land and after so longer span, whether litigant Surya Narayan Dubey has locus standi to sue his brothers who are not interested in cumbersome proceedings of courts. Most surprising Hon’ble court of S.D.M. Sadar Ratnpriya Gautam in lack of evidences and non appearance of litigant in the court had dismissed the suit on 29/03/2016. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of page 1 of attached PDF document.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that वाद संख्या –D-२०१४१६५३००१७३२ सन २०१४ न्यायलय उपजिलाधिकारी सदर मिर्ज़ापुर , सूर्य नारायण दुबे बनाम उमाशंकर दुबे वगैरहदिनांक १३०४२०१७ सुनवाई प्रश्नोत्तरी का अवलोकन करे | प्रश्न कृपया बताया जाय कि मुकदमा उपरोक्त में बिबादित आन २५००६३० , ४१  ००१३० , ४४ग़ ०००६० , १०२१३००० ,१०४०१७७० ,१०५०११४० है मौजा –नीबीगहरवार तप्पाछानबे परगना –कंतित तहसील –सदर जिला –मिर्ज़ापुर के सम्बन्ध में बटवारा का मुक़दमा दाखिल है | उत्तर –श्री मान जी जी हाँ | प्रश्न कृपया बताया जाय कि मुकदमा उपरोक्त में बिबादित आराजी मात्र में प्रतिवादी नंबर – आदित्य नारायण दुबे  कोनिर्माण कार्य करने के सम्बन्ध में कोई स्थगन आदेश पारित किया गया है उत्तरजी नही |  श्री मानजी कृपया संलग्नक पेज 2 and 3 का अवलोकन करे |

3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that after 27 years of mutual partition, a case was instituted by one of the aggrieved brothers as वाद संख्या –D-२०१४१६५३००१७३२ सन २०१४ न्यायलय उपजिलाधिकारी सदर मिर्ज़ापुर , सूर्य नारायण दुबे बनाम उमाशंकर दुबे वगैरह which was dismissed by the contemporary S.D.M. Sadar Ms Ratnpriya Gautam on 29/03/2016 due to lack of evidences and non attendance of litigant itself in the proceedings instituted by him.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether single party order is passed in the case instituted after 27 years of the partition by mutual consent. When the case was restored it was 19/01/2017 which means again S.D.M. Sadar Arvind Kumar Chauhan made the mockery of law of land by restoring the case in the absence of other parties whose interest was being sabotaged. 
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that order dated 22/03/2018 was passed in the case वाद संख्या –D-२०१४१६५३००१७३२ सन २०१४ न्यायलय उपजिलाधिकारी सदर मिर्ज़ापुर , सूर्य नारायण दुबे बनाम उमाशंकर दुबे but concerned Lekhpal Nihal Ahmad submitted its report dated -26/02/2019 by making Aditya Narayan Dubey as the litigant whether it is correct report. Whether quasi judicial proceedings are pursued in this largest democracy in the world arbitrarily? Here Aditya Narayan Dubey is the opposition party in the litigation.
6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Surya Narayan Dubey has sold its more than half transited hereditary property and now talking the value of the land. If S.D.M. Sadar is really interested in partition by making the mockery of the law of Land , then entire property may be again partitioned in accordance with the law not only particular land.

          This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.
                                                                                
                                                      Yours sincerely
                                ओम प्रकाश दुबे पुत्र आदित्य नारायण दुबे ग्राम पोस्ट नीबी गहरवार पुलिश थाना विन्ध्याचल डिस्ट्रिक्ट मिर्ज़ापुर उत्तर प्रदेश प्रार्थी मोबाइल नंबर ९९५६९३१९८३, Pincode-231303.

                     


2 attachments
Om Prakash Dubey.pdf
2019K
Om Prakash Dubey.docx
4385K

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yogi
1 year ago

Hon’ble Sir that Surya Narayan Dubey has sold its more than half transited hereditary property and now talking the value of the land. If S.D.M. Sadar is really interested in partition by making the mockery of the law of Land , then entire property may be again partitioned in accordance with the law not only particular land.

Arun Pratap Singh
1 year ago

Hon’ble Sir Surya Narayan Dubey has sold its more than half transited hereditary property and now talking the value of the land. If S.D.M. Sadar is really interested in partition by making the mockery of the law of Land , then entire property may be again partitioned in accordance with the law not only particular land.

Beerbhadra Singh
1 year ago

Whether it is not a reflection of rampant corruption in the government machinery Uttar Pradesh the individual who had sold half of the property now claiming the partition of a particular land after 27 years of mutual partition agreement. It is unfortunate that when the earlier sub divisional magistrate did not find any substance in the claim and had dismissed the litigation but now Newman posted at the same post passed order of partition of a particular land in order to benefit litigant and few. Whether it is good precedent being set up by the magistrate after 27 years of the partition done by brothers through mutual consensus.to