Allowed

Ishwari Prasad v. the Sub-Divisional Officer and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020WRIC/20742/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that pendency of a title suit cannot stay mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act as mutation does not confer title. Writ petition allowed, direction issued to appellate authority for expeditious disposal of appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, order dated 14.01.2020 set aside, appellate authority directed to dispose of pending appeal.

Ishwari Prasad Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20742 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ishwari Prasad Respondent :- The Sub-Divisional Officer And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.

¶6

In compliance of the order of this Court a supplementary affidavit is filed bringing on record the order sheet of the proceedings pending under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶7

The facts of the case are that the petitioner's mutation application was allowed against which an appeal was filed by the opposite parties which was entertained and the order passed by Tehsildar dated 03.10.2008 was stayed vide order dated 21.07.2014. Petitioner approached this Court vide Writ - C No. 32937 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2019 in following terms:

¶8

"This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶9

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1-Sub-Divisional Officer, Kirawali, District - Agra to consider and decide the Appeal No.01/2008-2009 (Computer No.T20180100402506) (Ram Kishan vs. Ishwari Prasad & others) filed Under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act relating to Mauja - Barauli, Tehsil- Kirawali, District - Agra filed as long as back on 29.09.2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, to secure the ends of justice."

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the pendency of the appeal directed against the order of mutation passed in his favour. This appeal is stated to be pending since September, 2008.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned to endeavour to decide the appeal filed by the respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him."

¶12

When the application was filed to expedite the matter of appeal pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in compliance of the order of this Court (supra) , the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kirawali, District Agra had turned down the application for expeditious disposal on the ground that certain matter is pending qua title of the land in question under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶13

From the perusal of order sheet as has been brought on record, it clearly transpires that there is no stay order over and above any proceeding of mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

¶14

Besides above, this Court is of the considered opinion that mutation is only for the purpose of collecting land revenue and therefore, pendency of a title suit cannot by itself amount to a stay over and above the mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. It is well established legal position that an order passed under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, does not and cannot confer any title upon any of the parties seeking mutation. it is always subject to a final outcome of a civil dispute qua title suit, if any pending. Even otherwise, if an application for mutation is allowed, a party does not get any right and title and any party which may be aggrieved or sets up the claim of title, can still file a suit and the order passed by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings shall stand bound by the outcome of such litigation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Meera Devi v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad And Ors. decided on 28.01.2019 in Misc. Single No. 34152 of 2018 in which it has been held thus:

¶16

"At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that as a matter of fact, the suit filed by father of the petitioner, namely, Girjapati seeking decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 01.01.2005 has been dismissed as such unless and until the said suit is decreed, the petitioner will have no locus to contest the mutation case. His submission is that in case by any appellate forum or court, the sale deed dated 01.01.2005 is cancelled, the petitioner will have opportunity to seek mutation of her name on the basis of such decree and since in the instant case the suit instituted by father of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the sale deed 01.01.2005 has also been dismissed and it is only that the appeal against the said judgment and decree is pending, hence the petitioner was not a necessary party in the proceedings before the Tehsildar and thus at her behest no application under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act could be entertained.

¶17

The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.3, in my opinion, is mis-conceived. The mutation proceedings cannot be deferred or stayed only on the ground of pendency of any other proceedings, may be the proceedings of a suit where the decree for cancellation of some deed is sought."

¶18

(Emphasis added)

¶19

The legal position is also sound enough to the effect that mere pendency of a case would not amount to stay over and above any other proceeding which is permissible in law and is being

¶20

conducted as per procedure prescribed for under the relevant law.

¶21

Since it is a pure legal question and the respondents can still agitate their matter before the appellate authority in their own pending appeal, no notices are required to be issued at this stage.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha Sri K.K. Mani could not dispute the above legal position.

¶23

In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14.01.2020 is set aside. The appellate authority namely the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kirawali, Agra is directed to dispose of the pending appeal in the light of directions issued by this Court on 17.10.2019 in Writ - C No. 32937 of 2019.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 IrfanUddin

Ishwari Prasad v. the Sub-Divisional Officer and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwari Prasad v. the Sub-Divisional Officer and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Bharti Vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Bharat Lal Vs State of U P and 10 Others

Dinesh Yadav Vs District Magistrate and 4 Others

Raushan Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Pintu Baitha Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Avinash Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others