Dismissed

Pawan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024WRIC/2101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged revenue orders passed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding mutation proceedings. The Court held that since the orders relied on a registered sale deed and a suit to cancel it is pending, the Court would not interfere. The petition is disposed of without orders on costs.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; petition disposed of without interfering in the challenged mutation orders.

Pawan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20120

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2101 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pawan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Anand Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Faiz Ahmad Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

In view of order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to private respondent(s) is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of present petition, petitioner has impeached the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devipatan Mandal, Gonda, in the revision instituted under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), registered as Case No. 1327 of 2022 (Pawan Kumar vs. Gorakhnath Singh) as also the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in an Appeal No. 11607 of 2018 (Pawan Kumar vs. Gorakhnath Singh & Others) instituted under Section 207 of the Code of 2006 and also the order dated 02.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.4-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Gonda, District-Gonda in Mutation Case No. T2017083047048408 (Gorakhnath vs. Bhikhi Singh).

¶9

Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes.

¶10

Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.

¶11

Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. Mutation of a property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any

¶12

presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.

¶13

It is settled law that the revenue court while dealing with the mutation case cannot ignore the registered sale deed so long as the sale deed is not cancelled by the competent court of jurisdiction.

¶14

It is also undisputed that the petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 09.01.1979, which is pending as Suit No. 2554 of 2018 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda.

¶15

It is evident that respondent No.4 vide order dated 02.12.2017 allowed the mutation case instituted by the respondent No.5Gorakhnath Singh, after taking note of registered sale deed dated 09.01.1979 executed by one Bhikhi Singh, father of the petitioner and appellate authority as also the revisional authority affirmed the order dated 02.12.2017 vide order(s) dated 13.09.2022 and 01.02.2024, respectively.

¶16

Thus, in nutshell the order(s) passed in mutation proceeding have been challenged by means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid particularly that the basis of impugned order(s) is registered sale deed dated 09.01.1979 and a suit for cancellation of sale deed instituted by petitioner is pending consideration, I am not inclined to interfere in the order(s) dated 02.12.2017, 13.09.2022 and 01.02.2024 challenged in this petition.

¶18

It is open for the petitioner to prefer an application seeking interim relief where the case is pending consideration.

¶19

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.3.2024 Vinay/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Dhani Ram @ Raghunandan Vs Addl. Commissioner (Prashasan) Lko. and 3 Others

Hasan Naseem Abbasi Lko. Thru.Their Power of Attorney Akhlak Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Kewal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 17 Others

Smt. Jagrani and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Hardoi and 2 Others

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others