Disposed

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023WRIC/15665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The High Court held that while mutation does not decide title, pendency of civil litigation alone does not stay mutation proceedings. The petition was disposed of by directing the Tehsildar to decide the petitioner's jurisdictional application within two months after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tehsildar to decide the application dated 15.03.2023 within two months after hearing both parties, examining the civil suit and nature of claim.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120506

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15665 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Pradeep Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

A supplementary afÏdavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a civil suit being Original Suit No.300 of 2022 (Raj Kumar and others Vs. Kalawati and others) is pending before the civil court in which the petitioner is one of the plaintiffs and the private respondents are the defendants and narrating the entire family history, a declaratory decree has been claimed with regard to the inter se relation between the parties to the litigation.

¶9

The submission is that though the suit was filed in February, 2002, immediately thereafter the private respondents filed an application under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶10

This petition has been filed challenging the entire proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 on the ground that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as the civil litigation is already pending and there are serious questions of title involved which the Tehsildar is not competent to decide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 12.10.2022 passed in Writ-B No.47327 of 2012 (Man Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and 4 others).

¶11

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel states that

¶12

the petition is premature as, till today, no order has been passed by the Tehsildar or other authority against the interest of the petitioner and, hence, the petition should be dismissed at this stage.

¶13

It is well settled that mutation entries do not decide title of the parties and they are maintained either on the basis of possession or for the purposes of payment of land revenue. It is also well settled that the mutation proceedings do not create a bar against regular title proceedings as provided under Section 39 of the Code, 2006 and equivalent provision was there earlier as Section 40-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

¶14

In so far as co-relation between the mutation proceedings, civil proceedings and regular title proceedings is concerned, certainly orders passed by the mutation courts are subject to the decision of the civil proceedings. However, at the same time, merely on the ground of pendency of civil litigation, every mutation proceeding cannot be stayed as this kind of restraint order would amount to restraining the judicial or quasi judicial authorities from exercising their statutory powers.

¶15

Therefore, this writ petition appears to be in the nature of a writ of prohibition which can be issued only when the authorities have no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 confers powers upon the revenue authorities to deal with the cases which are instituted under the provisions of the said Code.

¶16

In so far as the reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Man Singh is concerned, the said case had arisen out of three orders passed by the authorities and by applying the principle of merger after discussing effect of various orders passed by the courts/authorities, the orders of the revisional and appellate courts were set aside and the writ petition was allowed. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the said judgment, with due respect, as the facts of present case are different, inasmuch as, admittedly, no order has been passed even by

¶17

the first court i.e. the Tehsildar, in the present case.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an application dated 15.03.2023 filed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar by placing reliance upon the pendency of civil suit and it has been prayed in the said application that the case under Section 34 of the Code be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said application is pending and has not been decided.

¶19

In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the Tehsildar to decide the application dated 15.03.2023 before proceeding further with the matter within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Tehsildar concerned, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Tehsildar concerned shall examine the claim of both sides as well as the nature of civil proceedings while deciding the said application.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 AKShukla/-

¶21

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

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rudal Vs Up Zila Adhkari and 8 Others

Jagat Narayan and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nasir Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sadanand Singh Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others