Disposed
Piyare v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 4 Others
Allahabad HCWRIB/1189/2024
What the court decided
AI extract
Outcome
Notice issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4; petition listed for fresh hearing on 12.12.2024.
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.
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1189 of 2024
Petitioner :- Piyare
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kishore Verma,Harsh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.5.
Under challenge is the order dated 30th October, 2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby it has allowed the revision preferred by private respondent No.3 setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority dated 10.02.2020 on the ground that the same was not maintainable in light of Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question belonged to one Ratnu, the brother of the petitioner. Upon the death of Ratnu, his property came in the hands of the petitioner and his name was duly recorded on the basis of the succession by means of the order dated 11.05.1989. In the year 2017, private respondent No.3 instituted proceedings for mutation, which was allowed ex parte on 05.10.2018. The petitioner had preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed on 10.02.2020, against which private respondent No.3 preferred a revision, which has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 30.10.2024.
The submission is that once there was a finding recorded that the notice was not issued or served on the petitioner, hence, the mutation order was bad. In such a case, respondent No.1 should not have intervened and even if at all the appellate order was set aside on the ground of maintainability, yet the matter should have been remanded to be considered on its merit or liberty should have been granted to the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him in law, however, without doing that, all doors for the petitioner have been foreclosed.
Prima facie, the matter requires consideration.
Let notice be issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4, returnable at an early date.
Step be taken within three days. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also serve private respondent Nos.3 and 4 through Dasti summons, for which the office shall do the needful.
List this matter on 12th December, 2024 as fresh and on the said date, the petitioner shall file an affidavit of service.
Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Ashutosh
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Piyare
Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow
Chairman
4 Others
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court