Dismissed

Smt. Krishma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIC/24121/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition against Tehsildar orders in mutation proceedings. The Court held that mutation is summary and subject to civil court adjudication, allowing the Tehsildar to decide the matter expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Tehsildar directed to decide mutation proceeding within four months after hearing parties.

Smt. Krishma Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192496

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24121 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Krishma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pusp Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Prakash Kushwaha

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

1.Heard Mr. Pusp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for Staterespondents.

¶7

2.The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by respondent no.3 and 24.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2 in the mutation proceeding.

¶8

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ram Murat was the father of the petitioner and Kamlesh is the uncle of the petitioner. He further submitted that with respect to the civil death of Ram Jiyawan civil proceeding has been initiated, which is pending before the civil Court. He further submitted that on the basis of Pa ka 11, name of petitioner being daughter of Ram Murat as well as name of husband of respondent No.4/ Kamlesh were recorded. He further submitted that mutation proceeding initiated by respondent No.4 was kept in abeyance by the Tehsildar on the ground that civil proceeding is pending before the civil Court. He further submitted that

¶9

aforementioned civil proceeding initiated in the year 2017 is still pending and the case is at the evidence stage. He further submitted that Tehsildar vide impugned order has set aside the earlier order/application and fixed the case for disposal on merit in accordance with law. He further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner against the order of Tehsildar has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that once the civil suit No.252 of 2017 is pending before the civil Judge (Junior Division) Banda, mutation proceeding cannot be initiated or adjudicated by the Tehsildar.

¶10

On the other hand, Mr. Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, counsel for respondent No.4 as well as Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that under the impugned order, mutation proceeding is to be decided by the Tehsildar, as such no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that writ petition arising out of mutation proceeding should not be entertained at the very initial stage of the proceeding. They further submitted that mutation proceedings are always subject to the adjudication by the civil court, as such there is no hindrance to decide the mutation proceeding in accordance with law and the same will be subject to the adjudication of the dispute by regular court in accordance with law.

¶11

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

There is no dispute about the fact that mutation proceeding in respect to the property of Ram Jiyawan is pending before the Tehsildar and Civil Proceeding being

¶13

suit No.252 of 2017 is pending before the Civil Court.

¶14

Perusal of order dated 06.06.2023 passed by Tehsildar in the mutation case under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant which is as under:

¶15

" आददशपतक नययययलययतहससलदयर

¶16

मणडलयचचतककटधयम, जनपदयबयबदय, तहससलयबयबदय वयदससखययय 2113/2016

¶17

कसपयकटरसककतवयदससखययय T 20160711012113 अनतररतधयरय- 35, अधधचनययउतरपददशरयजसवससचहत-2006

¶18

- - - - 06.06.2023पतयवलसपसत त ।पतकयरकरयई।कररशमयककओरसदमय०धसचवलजज (जक०चड०) बयसदयमकलवयदसस० 252/2017 शसमतसकररशमयबनयममतनसददवसआचददययर चकययरयय, धजसममरयमधजययवनककधसचवलडदथघघचषतचकयदजयनदककपयथरनयककरईहह ऐससससथचतमदपय०पतचदनयसक 22.07.2016 एवस 03.04.2023 कघउककममम चनरसतचकययजयतयहह।पतयवलसवयसतदमकलबहसचदनयसक 09.06.2023 कघपदशहघ। ह०अप०"

¶19

It is material that mutation proceeding and civil proceeding are independent proceedings and both are to be decided in accordance with law.

¶20

It is also settled principle of law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, which are always subject to the adjudication of the dispute by regular court, as such mutation proceeding can not be stayed unless there is any adjudication of the dispute by civil or revenue court.

¶21

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the pending mutation proceeding.

¶22

11. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

However, Tehsildlar is directed to decide the mutation

¶24

proceeding in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Needless to say that the orders passed in mutation proceeding will be always subject to the adjudication of the dispute, if any, by Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 PS*

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Krishma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lakshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahab Singh Vs the Additional Commissioner and 3 Others

Inerdev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 20 Others

Sarifuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others