Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024WRIC/5985/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged mutation orders rejecting his claim based on alleged remarriage of the deceased's widow. The court held mutation proceedings are summary and do not determine right or title; the remarriage claim was unsubstantiated, so relying on precedent the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue title in regular proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner left free to agitate his title in appropriate regular proceedings.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51325

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5985 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Pandey,Deep Narayan Tripathi

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pramod Kumar Soni,Rajesh Kumar Awasthi

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 to 7.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of mutation as well as the order passed in Appeal and in revision rejecting the contention of the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the proper procedure has not been followed, coupled with the fact that certain admissions have also not been taken note of and since the petitioner has been in possession of the property in question, the order of mutation passed by the Authority concerned is bad in the eyes of law.

¶10

The learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand submits that the property in question was that of Bhola who was the husband of the private respondent no. 5. Upon his death, Parwati being his widow had inherited and succeeded to the estate of her husband. The name of the private respondent no. 5 was duly incorporated and mutated and thereafter the respondent no. 5 has sold the property to the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 whose names have also been recorded.

¶11

It has further been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the averment made by the petitioner regarding re-marriage of private respondent no. 5 could not be substantiated and for the said reason, the order which has been passed by the Authorities concerned does not suffer from any error.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material on record, apparently, the issue of mutation as adjudicated is in a summary proceedings where no right, title or interest is determined. In the instant case, the

¶13

contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the property, coupled with the fact that wife of Bhola had remarried and she had lost her right of inheritance and the property will devolve on the petitioner has not been found substantiated as neither the date of death of Bhola has been indicated nor the alleged date of re-marriage has been proved.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid and also noticing the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 as well as a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue reported in 2022 SCC Online All 193 , this Court is of the opinion that the instant petition is not maintainable as the exceptions which have been noticed by the Court in its decision of Kalawati (supra) are not made out.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to agitate his title, if at all, in the appropriate regular proceedings which shall be decided on its own merit without being influenced by any finding or observation made by this Court and needless to say that any order passed by the Regular Forum shall be binding on the mutation Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Asheesh

¶17

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

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 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

Baliram Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue and others

Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Saif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Poonam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 7 Others

Nidhi Lata vs Shri Pramod Nigam

Rooplal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, and 3 Others