Dismissed

Sentu Kumar v. Board O Revenue and 12 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2021WRIB/754/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue orders concerning a void sale deed where the vendor had no transferable title. The bench held that the remedy lies in a civil suit for recovery of money rather than enforcement of the sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court for recovery of money paid pursuant to the void sale deed.

Sentu Kumar Vs Board O Revenue and 12… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 754 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sentu Kumar Respondent :- Board O Revenue And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on audio/video link.

¶4

Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 , 3 and 4 is available. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent 13 representing Gaon Sabha is also available on audio/video link.

¶5

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by respondent 1, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No. 1504 of 2017 (Hoshiyar vs Lekhpal) as well as order dated 15.01.2007 passed by respondent 2, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision no. 15/0506 (Lekhpal vs Hoshiyar Singh).

¶6

Record shows that respondent 5, Hoshiyar Singh executed a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1996 in favour of Lekhpal Singh father of petitioner and Kishan Pal Singh, respondent no.6. Pursuant to the aforesaid sale deed, vendees i.e. petitioner and respondent 6 applied for mutation of their names in revenue records. The said mutation application came to be allowed by Nayab Tehsildar, Sikandrabad vide order dated 13.05.2005. This order dated 13.05.2005 was challenged by vendor by filing revision no. 15/05-06 (Lekhpal vs Hoshiyar Singh) which came to be allowed vide order 15.01.2007. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut concluded that no right, title or interest accrues in favour of vendees pursuant to above mentioned registered sale deed as vendor has no

¶7

transferable right regarding the land which is subject matter of above mentioned sale deed. Accordingly, the order passed by Nayab Tehsildar was set aside and land in dispute was directed to be vested in State.

¶8

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.01.2007 vendor challenged the same by filing Revision No. 1504 of 2017 before Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow which was allowed by respondent 1 vide order dated 02.11.2020. Board of Revenue concluded that since the registered sale deed is a void document as vendor had no transferable rights in the land in dispute, therefore, the registered sale deed relied upon by vendees i.e. petitioner and respondent 6 is void ab initio. Consequently, no benefit can be claimed by vendees pursuant to above noted sale deed. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow accordingly set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and directed that the name of vendor shall continue to be recorded in the revenue records.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid two orders passed by respondent 1 and 2 respectively, petitioner who is vendee has now approached this Court by means of present writ petition.

¶10

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel contends that in view of the facts which have come on record, remedy lies to petitioner by filing of a suit for recovery of money. Since vendor had no transferable interest in the land in dispute on the date of execution of sale deed, nothing has been transferred in favour of petitioner pursuant to the sale deed dated 30.12.1996. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on basis of registered sale deed dated 30.12.1996.

¶11

I find force in the submission of learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner could not over come the

¶12

submission urged by learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any factual or legal infirmity in the submissions urged by learned Standing Counsel.

¶13

Accordingly, present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

It is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach competent court of civil jurisdiction for recovery of money paid by petitioner to respondent 5, Hoshiyar Singh pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 30.12.1996.

¶15

Cost made easy.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.7.2021/A.Kr.

Sentu Kumar v. Board O Revenue and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sentu Kumar v. Board O Revenue and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaylal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Pal Singh and Another Vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Ram Adhar Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Manveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Rajpal Singh Vs Additional Commissioner and 2 Others