This writ petition sought mutation of the petitioner's name on a residential plot. The Chief Justice's Court held that the cause must be agitated before the Block Development Officer rather than under Article 226.
Petitioner granted liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the concerned Authority.
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.
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2144 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bindu Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalp Nath Rai,Rajiv Kumar,Udai Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This petition for writ is preferred with prayer clauses as follows:-
i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the Block Development Officer, Block- Sadiyabad, Tehsil- Jakhaniya, District- Ghazipur to mutate/registered the name of the petitioner on the residential Plot no. 255 Kha, Area 0.0410 situated in Village- Ramnara, Post- Dharmagatpur, Pargana- Sadiyabad, TehsilJakhaniya, District- Ghazipur in the interest of justice.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to not interfere and dispossess to the Plot No. 255 Kha, Area 0.0410 situated in Village- Ramnara, Post- Dharmagatpur, Pargana- Sadiyabad, TehsilJakhaniya, District- Ghazipur in the interest of justice.
The cause of the petitioner is required to be agitated before the Block Development Officer only and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It would also be appropriate to state that as per learned Standing Counsel, the entry as desired by the petitioner is required to be made by Tehsildar concerned as per provisions of Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006
Be that as it may, in any event the Principal Authority to make the entries in family register is available to Executive Authorities and without approaching them or without completing the entry mechanism prescribed in that regard in the relevant statute, no petition for writ can be entertained.
The writ petition, hence is dismissed.
The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.
If any representation has been submitted by the petitioner as stated then that shall be considered by the Authority concerned in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019 / Rameez
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. ) (Govind Mathur,C.J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for mutation of land name should be dismissed as the petitioner must first exhaust remedies before the Block Development Officer as per statutory provisions.
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when statutory machinery for mutation has not been availed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bindu Chauhan
State Of U P
Govind Mathur
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
