Petitioner challenged the revisional order rejecting mutation proceedings where a sale deed was subject to a pending civil suit. Court found no illegality by revenue authorities since vendee had right to be mutated.
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. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7309 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mevaram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the revisional order dated 24.01.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administrative), Bareilly in Case No. 118/2008-09 arising from an order dated 03.07.2009 passed by Naib-Tehsildar, Neuria, District Pilibhit in Case No. 30/2008-09 (Vidya Devi and others Vs. Pooran Lal) in a mutation proceedings.
The facts in brief is that fifth and sixth respondents purchased 1/6 share of Pooran Lal in plots no. 136 admeasuring 0.591, 369 admeasuring 0.49 and 370 admeasuring 0.482 hectare recorded in khata no. 339 vide registered sale-deed dated 15.11.2008. Petitioner is co-owner of the said property and brother of Pooran Lal, the vendor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sale-deed is subject matter of challenge by the petitioner and suit is pending before the competent civil court. In other words, he submits that pending civil suit, the mutation could not have been carried out.
It is not being disputed that property was transferred by co-owner by registered sale-deed, the vendee having purchased the share of the property had a right to be mutated in the revenue record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference.
The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 P. Sri.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ court can interfere with the mutation carried out by revenue authorities pending a civil suit challenging the sale deed.
Mevaram
State Of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
