Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs A.D.O. Panchayat Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17300

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003686 of 2003

Petitioner :- Ram Kumar And Anr. Respondent :- A.D.O. Panchayat Faizabad And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- O.N. Tewari,Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Singh,Manoj Kumar Shukla,V.B. Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

(C.M.A. No. 05 of 2023 - Delay & C.M.A. No. 06 of 2023 - Recall )

¶7

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner presses the application for condonation of delay as well as application for recall.

¶9

It has been submitted that the application for recall of the order dated 18.05.2018 was listed on before this Court on 13.04.2022 on which date, learned counsel for petitioner has gone to his village to attend his uncle who was seriously ill. It is in this circumstances he could not appear before this Court and therefore the application for recall was dismissed for want of prosecution. The said application has been filed around six months which has been sought to be explained.

¶10

The said order could not be noticed by the petitioner on his return from his village but was informed subsequently.

¶11

The reasons stated for delay in filing the application is sufficient. According the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing the application for recall for order dated 13.04.2022 is condoned.

¶12

Further, cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for recall of the order dated 13.04.2022 is sufficient. Applications are allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, order dated 13.4.2022 is recalled.

¶14

The applications are restored to its original number.

¶15

(Order on C.M.A. No. 175722 of 2021 - Delay & C.M.A. No. 175723 of 2021 - Recall)

¶16

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶17

In view of the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filling the application for recall, delay is condoned.

¶18

Further, cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for recall of the order dated 18.05.2018 is sufficient. Applications are allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, order dated 18.05.2018 is recalled.

¶20

Writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶21

(Order on Writ petition)

¶22

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶23

No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4.

¶24

The petitioner by means of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 14.07.2003 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District Faizabad thereby he has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27.02.1995 of Additional Development Officer (panchayat) whereby he has included the name of respondents in the name of pariwar register.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the writ petition arises out of summary proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and such proceedings do not confer any right or title over any property and writ petitions against such orders are not maintainable and the rights of the petitioner, if any, have have to be determined in this regard by the civil courts.

¶26

The consistent view taken by the this Court is that writ petition in matters arising out of disputes where decision has been made in a summary manner, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India would not be maintainable inasmuch as in case the petitioner claim his tilted then appropriate court to decide the matter would be the ordinary civil courts. It has also been held that mere mutation or other summary proceedings like 67 of U.P. Revenue Code cannot adequately declare the title of any person and the same has to be done by the civil courts.

¶27

6 It has been held in catena of decisions by this Court that proceedings under U.P. L.R. Act / U.P. Revenue Code are summary in nature and they do not confer any title finally as such writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings is not maintainable.

¶28

In the case of Smt. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur & Ors. [1996 (6) SCC] , Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para-7 as under:

¶29

"Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose

¶30

favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question."

¶31

Similar view has been taken in para-9 of the judgment in the case of Suraj Bhan & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 186] . Relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced below:

¶32

"It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of land-revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court."

¶33

A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble O.H. Mootham, Chief Justice and Hon'ble M.L. Chaturvedi, JJ. in the case of Jaipal Minor vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad [(1956) ALJ page 807] has held that no interference is to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the orders passed by Board of Revenue. Relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced below:

¶34

"It has however been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title to the property in question, and his right to establish his title thereto is expressly reserved by Section 40 (3) of the Act. The only exception to this general rule is in those cases in which the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act."

¶35

Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J. in the case of Madhav Pandey & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. [2002 (20) LCD 1439 . Relevant extracts of paras- 24 & 30 of the judgment is being reproduced below:

¶36

" 24. .........Furthermore, the present writ petition arises out of the summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and the writ petition is not entertained on the principle that in summary proceedings title of the parties are not decided and the summary proceedings are always subject to adjudication of title by the competent court.

¶37

30. .........The present proceedings arise out of the mutation proceedings which is summary proceeding and the writ petitions against the summary proceedings are not entertained under Article 226 of Constitution of India."

¶38

In the case of Sri Lal Bachan vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. [2002 (20) LCD 115] , this Court in para- 23 has spelt out some exceptions in which writ petition can be maintained. Exception was that mutation court has

¶39

passed the order without having any jurisdiction or has interfered with the order passed in the proceedings and there too substantial injustice to be suffered by the parties has to be seen.

¶40

Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage also does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that petitioner is ready and willing to get his rights determined by the civil courts but submits that had been protected by the interim order dated 01.10.2003 passed by this Court and the same protection may also be extended till the decision taken by the civil court.

¶41

Learned Standing Counsel does not object to the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach civil court for determination of his rights and in case civil suit is filed within next four weeks along with an application for temporary injunction then the trial court is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously within a maximum period of four months thereafter and till passing of appropriate order by the civil court on an application for temporary injunction, the protection as provided by this Court shall continue.

¶43

It is made clear that protection of this Court shall come to an end when the order pass by the civil court.

¶44

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶45

Order Date :- 26.2.2024

¶46

Ravi/

¶47

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kumar and Anr. v. A.D.O. Panchayat Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar and Anr. v. A.D.O. Panchayat Faizabad and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Ashfaq Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Division Gonda and Another

Lal Bahadur Yadav Vs District Judge Distt. Sultanpur and Others

Shakeel Ahmad Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Malihabad Lucknow and Others

Maulana Abdul Rab Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Lucknow

Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Food and Civil Supply Lko and Ors.

Carmel Venture Private Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow through Its Assistant Registrar and Anr.