Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt.) Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022/3508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of mutation orders under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Relying on precedent, the Court held such proceedings are summary in nature and generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to file a suit for declaration of title.

Santosh Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3508 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Sharma and another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt.) Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri V.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar in a case filed under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ordering mutation of name of opposite party No. 4 in place of Ram Abhilakh as tenure holder of land bearing Khata No. 206 and 392. He has also challenged the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya whereby the revision filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

¶8

Shri V.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition filed against the order passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding mutation of names in the revenue record is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, AIR 1957 Allahabad 205 wherein this Court held that " It has however been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. "

¶9

He has also placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Awadhesh Singh Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Administration, Basti Division, Basti and others, 2017 (137) RD 114 wherein this Court held that "It is settled law that this Court should not interfere in the writ jurisdiction in the orders passed in summary proceedings by Revenue Court, it is always open to the parties to get their right determined before the competent court of law in regular proceedings." Yet another decision in the case of Abdul Hameed and another Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Bela, Pratapgarh and others, 2019 (144) RD 120 following the decision of Awadhesh Singh (supra) this Court held that that " writ petitions against Mutation Proceedings can be entertained, but on two grounds only (a) if the order impugned has been passed without jurisdiction or going beyond the jurisdiction that is vested in the authority by the Act and the Rules (b) if the order impugned creates, rights in favour of the parties or liabilities against the

¶10

parties, which are against the settled provisions of the Statute or against a decision given inter-parties by a Competent Court of law.

¶11

25. The orders passed in Mutation Proceedings being summary in nature, writ petitions are usually not entertained, except for the exception carved out as referred to herein above.

¶12

26. Also, it is not that the petitioners are left remedyless in such matters. The petitioners can approach the competent Court of law for declaration of their rights on the basis of family settlement, if any, that was entered into between the parties in 1966."

¶13

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be granted liberty to file a suit for declaration of their title in respect of land in dispute as provided under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedy under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In case the petitioners file a suit before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned, the same shall be proceeded and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Jaswant

¶16

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.06.08 16:57:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt.) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt.) Lko. and 3 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

Dev Krishna Tiwari @ Munnu Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashwani Kumar Singh Alias Rishu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shantisaran and Others Vs Sadiq Hasan Alias Nibbar and Others

Punjab National Bank Lko Thru. Its General Secy. and 15 Others Vs Circle Head and Appointing Auth. PNB Lko and 3 Others

Gudiya Devi Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 15 and Sultanpur 2 Others