The single judge held that after 52 years, mutation via writ petition is not the proper remedy. The writ was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to file a declaratory suit to establish title and possession.
Liberty granted to file a declaratory suit to establish title and possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14136 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Babu Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Chandra Pandey for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for State respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Ram Babu Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
This writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondent authorities to mutate the name of the petitioner over the disputed land on the basis of patta dated 30.8.1966.
After about 52 years, mutation is not the proper remedy. The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file a declaratory suit and to establish their title and possession over the disputed land.
Order Date :- 19.4.2018 RKP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether mutation of name over disputed land after 52 years is the proper remedy via writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar And Another
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
