Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIC/24206/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of impugned orders in pending mutation proceedings and direction to decide objections was dismissed. Court held no interference warranted as matter is pending, but directed authorities to decide proceedings expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; respondent authority directed to decide pending mutation proceedings within four months considering petitioner's objections.

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 20 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192830

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24206 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sharda Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 20 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

1.Heard Mr. Archit Mehrotra, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶7

2.The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶8

(i)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 in Civil Revision No.01340/2009 (Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. Navneet Yadav and others) arising out of order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 in Suit No.T201801260101528 (Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to respondent No.3 to decide the application/ objection dated 13.03.2019 filed by the petitioner"

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that mutation proceeding on the basis of sale deed has been initiated at the instance of the contesting respondents after 27 years from the date of the execution of alleged sale deed. He further submitted that preliminary objection was raised before the Tehsildar in the pending mutation proceeding that proceeding is not maintainable as the sale deed was alleged to be executed 27 years before, but no reason has been assigned in the mutation application as to why the proceeding has not been initiated earlier. He further submitted that

¶11

preliminary objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 17.05.2019 and the revison has been also dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2023 without considering the case set up in the application as well as revision in accordance with law. He further submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and matter be remitted back before the Tehsildar to decide the petitioner's preliminary objection in accordance with law.

¶12

On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that mutation proceeding is still pending before the Tehsildar, as such petitioner should contest the proceeding before the Tehsildar on merit rather writ petition before this Court at this stage of the proceeding. He further submitted that there is no limitation for filing the mutation application, as such the mutation application cannot be rejected on the very initial stage rather the same should be decided in accordance with law after evidence of the parties.

¶13

In reply, counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is correct that there is no limitation for filing the mutation application but the initiation of the proceeding after 27 years raises suspicion about the alleged sale deed, which is a basis of the claim of the contesting respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

There is no dispute about the fact that mutation proceeding initiated under section 34 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the respondent No.3/ Naib Tehsildar (Sadar) Division Agra, Tehsil and District-Firozabad and the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order.

¶16

Since the mutation proceeding is still pending and preliminary objection raised by petitioner has been rejected under impugned order dated 17.05.2019 making observation in the order that objection set up by the petitioner will be considered at the time of final disposal of the case in accordance with law, which requires no interference by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶17

9. Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

However, respondent No.3/Naib Tehsildar (Sadar) Division Agra, Tehsil and District-Firozabad is directed to decide the pending mutation proceeding in accordance with law considering the objection of the petitioner as well as evidence of the parties 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 PS*

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. and 20 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

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

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

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others