Disposed

Santosh Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner Admin. First Devipatan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024WRIC/3582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue orders via writ petition. Respondent raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability due to alternative statutory remedy under Revenue Code. Court disposed of petition with liberty to file the suit.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as permissible under the law.

Santosh Kumar vs Addl. Commissioner Admin. First… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30957

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3582 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Admin. First Devipatan Mandal Gonda And 8 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Dwivedi,Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned orders dated 12.03.2024 passed by O.P. No. 1 in Revision No. 00103/2009 (Computer Case No. C200908000103) in case Santosh Kumar Vs Rajeshwari Prasad and others, under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and order dated 17.02.2009 passed by O.P. No. 2 appeal No. 36, under Section 210 of L.R. Act, 1901, in case Santosh Kumar Vs. Rajeswari Prasad and others and order dated 04.11.2008 passed by O.P. No. 3 Case No. 457/904/417/64, under Section 34 of L.R. Act, 1901.

¶9

Learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy to file a suit under Section 144 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶10

It is further submitted that the proceedings under Section 39 are summary in nature and for establishing the rights to the land is to be adjudicated in the suit filed under Section 144.

¶11

To buttress his submission, learned State Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the Case of Kalawati versus Board of Revenue and others reported in 2022 (4) ALJ 26 and the judgment and order dated 23.09.2021 passed by this Court in the case of Prasidha Narayan Tripathi versus Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and others passed in Misc. Single No. 17388 of 2008.

¶12

The relevant paragraph-21 relied upon by learned State Counsel in the case of Kalawati versus Board of Revenue and others is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶13

'21. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature

¶14

drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :-

¶15

(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided;

¶16

(ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded;

¶17

(iii) they neither extinguish nor create title;

¶18

(iv) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries;

¶19

(v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and

¶20

(vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.'

¶21

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition may be disposed of with liberty to file a suit under Section 144 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made be learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as permissible under the law.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Ashish

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner Admin. First Devipatan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. Addl. Commissioner Admin. First Devipatan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kripal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh and Others

Ram Dular Vs D.D.C.

Chhedi Alias Chhedi Prasad Yadav Vs Addil. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal and 8 Others

Rakesh Acharya Major and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Ors.

Chanda Begam Vs Board of Revenue Lko. Thru. Chairman and 5 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner Admin. First Devipatan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others