Dismissed

Smt.Subhawati v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2023WRIC/14013/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a revisional order remanding mutation proceedings. Upholding the remand order but directing the Tehsildar to decide within six months, the Court maintained the petitioner's recorded name and status quo until final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained in favor of petitioner; petition for annulment of remand order dismissed.

Smt.Subhawati Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14013 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt.Subhawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

¶6

The petitioner purchased the land in dispute in the year 2013 by means of a registered sale deed executed by recorded tenure holder and the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records under the order dated 20.04.2018 which was endorsed in the relevant khatauni and the same still remains recorded in the khatauni pertaining to 1430 F - 1435 F.

¶7

At the strength of an unregistered Will of 1994, one Tilak filed a case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was clubbed with another case filed by Ayub who was predecessor-ininterest of petitioner and by order dated 28.12.2007, the entry in the name of vendor of the petitioner was made. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed which was dismissed on 26.09.2012.

¶8

Both the aforesaid orders have been set aside by the revisional court by order impugned dated 18.03.2023 and the matter has been remanded to the First Court i.e. Tehsildar to decide the case again on merits after giving opportunity to lead evidence and hearing to the parties concerned.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid Will has been challenged before the civil court in Original Suit No.426 of 1991 and the same forms part of the record of the said civil suit. He submits that by the orders dated 28.12.2007 and 26.09.2012, the claim of Tilak was rejected on the ground that only photostat copy of the will has been filed which is not admissible in evidence, however, the revisional court, though admits the same proposition of law, has unnecessarily set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the first court. He also submits that by setting aside of the orders, the entry in the name of the petitioner would also be reversed or adversely affected.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel states that the writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and is not maintainable and, even otherwise, the order impugned is an order of remand and since the parties have opportunities to contest the matter on merits, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in so far as inadmissibility of photostat copy of the Will is concerned, in all the orders the said contention has been accepted. However, the revisional court has recorded a finding that the mutation court itself had summoned the original Will from the civil court by issuing a letter but on account of some discrepancy regarding date of the Will, the civil court did not send the same to the court of Tehsildar. The revisional court has also observed that the Tehsildar was not justified in recording the statement of witnesses on photostat copy of the Will and he should have proceeded in accordance with law after ensuring that original Will is before him.

¶12

The said finding supports the case of the petitioner, however considering the nature of the remand and also the fact that the petitioner's name has been mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the sale deed of 2013 and by the orders which have been set aside by the revisional court, the name of the petitioner's vendor was recorded, this petition is being disposed of in the following terms:-

¶13

(a) The order of remand impugned in the present writ petition is not being interfered with.

¶14

(b) The proceedings pursuant to the order of remand shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of six months from today by the court of Tehsildar after giving full opportunity to the parties as already directed by the revisional court.

¶15

(c) Since the petitioner's name has been recorded pursuant to the sale deed of 2013, it is directed that till disposal of the matter by the Tehsildar, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the property in dispute.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 AKShukla/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt.Subhawati v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Subhawati v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Sarv Deo Singh @ Dr. Sarv Deo Singh Yogacharya Kalam Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Chunni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Pooja Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramayan Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banshi Singh and Anr. Vs Addl. Commissioner Moradabad and Ors.

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others