Dismissed

Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023/142/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a revision order upholding a mutation appeal allowing another party. Relying on the principle that mutation does not decide title, the Court dismissed the writ, allowed a regular suit for declaration, and directed maintenance of status quo till interim relief disposal. This Court only.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to institute regular suit for declaration of rights; maintenance of status quo pending interim relief; defendants to cooperate.

Ram Singh Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 2… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:43317

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 142 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Singh Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Pande,Anshuman Verma,Virendra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶7

In view of the order proposed, issuance of notices to private respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Case No. REV/863/2019, Computerized Case No. R2019106400863 (Vijay Singh Versus Ram Singh) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (in short "Act of 1901").

¶9

The dispute relates to Khata No.173, Plot No.571 and 1132 situated in Village-Sahajahanpur, Tehsil-Sidhauli, District-Sitapur. The land, in issue, was recorded in the name of Raghuvar S/o Gangadeen. Shri Raghuvar dies on 26.01.1990 and thereafter under PA-11 name of two sons namely Ram Singh (Petitioner) and Brij Lal in place of Raghuvar vide order dated 31.01.1990.

¶10

As pleaded, Brij Lal own, brother of petitioner died issueless and as such, the name of petitioner was also mutated in place of Brij Lal being his heir and successor vide order dated 24.11.2020 in the Revenue Records. The petitioner is in continuous possession after the death of Raghuvar, which appears from the extract of Khasra in respect of land in dispute (Annexure No.7 to this writ petition).

¶11

One Prashuram son of Kalika filed a mutation application on 25.07.1990 for mutating his name on the basis of 'Will' dated 01.02.1990 alleging that Raghuvar died on 01.03.1990. The Naib Tehsildar rejected the mutation application filed by Parshuram vide order dated 03.04.1991. Being aggrieved, Parshuram, father of opposite party No.3 filed an appeal under

¶12

Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") before the Deputy Collector, Sidhauli, District-Sitapur, which was registered as Appeal No.70 of 1991. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 03.04.1991 passed by the Naib Tehsildar on 01.09.1992.

¶13

Thereafter, against the order passed by the Deputy Collector the petitioner filed a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 on 15.09.1992. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow vide its order dated 30.03.2019 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to lower appellate court for decision a fresh.

¶14

The opposite party No.3 challenging the order dated 30.03.2019 filed a Revision No.863 of 2019 before the opposite party No.1. The revision filed by the opposite party No.3 was allowed impugned vide order dated 21.10.2002, whereby affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 01.09.1992. Impugned order dated 21.10.2022 says that "Will" dated 01.02.1990 was proved by the attesting witnesses.

¶15

In the aforesaid background, the present petition has been filed.

¶16

Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.

¶17

Section 40A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. Mutation of a property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts as also the law related to mutation entry, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with

¶19

liberty to the petitioner to institute a regular suit seeking declaration of rights within two months from today before appropriate Court/Forum.

¶20

In regard to interim relief, it is provided that if an application seeking interim relief is preferred by the petitioner before the Court/Authority concerned in the proceedings initiated by them, the Court/Authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same as early as possible, say within a period of three months from the date of preferring the application seeking interim relief after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶21

It is further directed that in case the petitioner institute any suit, the defendants therein will cooperate with the proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

¶22

Considering the facts pleaded on the basis of copies of Khasra of land in dispute as also the issues involved in this case, this Court is of the view that justice would suffice if till disposal of application seeking interim relief/injunction by the competent Authority, the rights of the parties to the litigation be protected. Accordingly, it is directed that till disposal of application seeking interim relief/injunction, the parties to the litigation shall maintain status-quo as exists today and shall not alienate, transfer or create any charge over the property in issue.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Jyoti/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rati Pal and Ors. Vs D.D.C. Sultanpur Camp Amethi and Anr.

Gokul Vs Addl. Commissioner, Lko. Division, Lko. and 17 Others

Rajesh Pandey and 2 Others Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Patti Distt. Pratapgarh and 8 Others

Meena Oberoi Vs Board of Revenue U.P.Lucknow Throu.Judicial Member and Ors.

Manjeet Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Jagat Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others