Writ petition challenging a revision order upholding mutation of disputed land in the name of an unsound mind petitioner's brother-in-law. The High Court found no illegality or infirmity to warrant interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79389
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1179 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Mahdei
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 7 and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 are present.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.9.2024 passed in Revision No. 121 of 2024, Computerized Case No. 2019531046000013; Smt. Shanti vs. Mahdei under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father-in-law of the petitioner namely, Bhagwant was the original tenure holder of the land in dispute. He died in the year 1987. After sometime, the husband of the petitioner namely, Nand Kishor was murdered on 20.05.1987. Bhagwant had two sons namely, Babadeen and Nand Kishor. Babadeen was of unsound mind, therefore, the petitioner had moved an application for mutation. The application was allowed by means of order dated 30.12.1987 and Babadeen had put his thumb impression on the said order. Babadeen had filed an appeal on 27.05.1988 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the aforesaid order dated 30.12.1987 along with an application for condonation of delay. The appeal was dismissed in default on 08.02.1993. One Smt. Shanti Devi claiming herself to be the wife of Babadeen moved an application for restoration of the
aforesaid order before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 05.12.2017. The said application was dismissed by means of order dated 16.01.2019. During pendency of the application, Smt. Shanti Devi had died, therefore, her legal heirs were got substituted. The successors filed their revision against the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal and the revision has been allowed by means of the impugned order without considering that the application was moved with a delay of about 25 years without sufficient cause. He further submits that the petitioner had filed objection to the application for recall alleging therein that the previous Gram Pradhan had got murdered the husband of the petitioner and he was also instrumental in filing of the application for recall. It has also been submitted that Smt. Shanti Devi moved an application for inclusion of her name in the family register on 15.11.2017, but no decision was taken thereon. Therefore, other application was also moved on 16.02.2019, but till date no decision has been taken thereon. Thus, the submission is that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.
It appears that Bhagwant was the original tenure holder of the land in dispute, who died in the year 1987 leaving behind his two sons namely, Babadeen and Nand Kishor. Nand Kishor was murdered in the year 1987, therefore, her wife Mahdei i.e., the petitioner moved an application for mutation alleging therein that her brother-in-law (jeth) is of unsound mind, therefore, her name should be recorded in the revenue records to save the property from alienation by misrepresentation by somebody through her brother-in-law. The said application was disposed of by means of order dated 30.12.1987. Perusal of the order dated 30.12.1987 indicates that it was argued on behalf of the
petitioner that the father-in-law of the petitioner had only one son i.e., the husband of the petitioner and he is the only successor, therefore, the chak nos. 100 and 101 may be recorded in her name. Considering the same, the application was allowed. Therefore, it is apparent that the plea taken by the petitioner was not considered by the Consolidation Officer and on a misconceived and false argument, treating the petitioner as the sole legal heir, the application was allowed, wherein admittedly the husband of the petitioner had two brothers. Since this fact has not been considered that he had also a brother and the allegation of the petitioner is that he was of unsound mind, which has also not been considered and without considering the same and proof thereof, the application was allowed. The petitioner had also not placed on record any material to show that the brother of the husband of the petitioner was of unsound mind, therefore, it is required to be considered. In such a case in which the fraud appears to have been played on the court for obtaining an order, the time is immaterial because the facts mentioned in the application moved by the petitioner are different than in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Therefore, it is required to be examined as to whether the said application was moved or not and if it was moved, why the same was not considered and the order was passed without considering the same and if it was not moved, how a copy has been issued, which has been filed before this Court.
In view of above, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Court. The petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds and it lacks merit.
The petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2024 Shravan
Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order regarding mutation of property in the name of an unsound mind person necessitates this Court's interference.
Whether the revision order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is legally sustainable given alleged procedural lapses.
Mahdei
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
