The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a revision filed against an order rejecting a revision on the ground of interlocutory nature. The court refused to entertain the writ despite pending writ proceedings and a separate partition suit, noting mutation proceedings are summary.
No order as to costs.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:165814
Reserved on 29.04.2024 Delivered on 18.10.2024
Court No. - 69
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6123 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ravikant Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri N.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing the State respondents.
The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner Judicial (II) Varanasi Region, Varanasi in Revision No. 1044 of 2023, Computerized Case No. 202314000001044 (Shiv Shankar vs. Ravindra Nath Singh and others), under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the Revision has been refused to be entertained and at the same time directions have been issued to the Court below to decide the case within three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The writ petition arises out of suit for division of holdings instituted by the respondent no. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that Arazi No. 954 area 0.2450 Hectare was recorded in the name of Somaru S/o Suddhu. After his death the names of Anurup, Swaroop, Jagroop Anoop and Chhotu were recorded over the said Arazi on the basis of succession. It is contended that Chhotu lost his share in the Arazi in question of being adopted by one Kola So Bhairav Kori. The father of the petitioner Shiv Shankar along with one Loni S/o Murali purchased 2/5th part of the arazi under a registered Sale deed from Jitnu and Tersu sons of Jagroop on 22.04.1995. The name of the father of the petitioner was recorded over the arazi in question along with the names of other co-sharers. The father of the petitioner also got executed a registered agreement to Sell by advancing Rs. 10,000/- and is enjoying the possession over the Arazi in question. Meanwhile Rajendra S/o Chhotu in collusion with the revenue authorities got his name mutated over the Arazi even though his father had been adopted by Kola S/o Bhairav Kori and his ties with the family of Somaru S/o Suddhu stood severed sold 2/5th part of Arazi No. 954 comprising an area of 0.09 Hectare by registered Sale Deed dated 23.05.2008 in favour of the respondent no. 5.
On the strength of the Sale Deed dated 23.05.2008, the respondent no. 5 moved for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The petitioner filed objections. The mutation application of the respondent no. 5 was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 27.12.2019 recording the finding that Rajendra had no authority to execute the Sale Deed.
The Tehsildar, however vide order dated 23.06.2022 reviewed his earlier order and allowed the mutation in favour of the respondent no. 5. The petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 35 (2) of the Revenue Code, 2006 assailing the order dated 23.06.2022. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 10.11.2022 rejected the Appeal. The Revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and now the proceedings are pending before this Court in Writ B No. 4904 of 2024.
It is contended that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings the respondent no. 5 has instituted a Suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for division of the holdings. On coming to know of the suit under Section 116 of the Code the petitioner filed an application dated 16.02.2023 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The said application was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Saidpur, District Ghazipur vide order dated 02.03.2023. The Revision preferred against the order dated 02.03.2023 before the Additional Commissioner Judicial (II) Varanasi Region, Varanasi, has been rejected vide order dated 10.11.2023 on the ground that the Revision has been preferred against an interlocutory order and is not maintainable.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel and find that the Revisional Court has directed the proceedings to be decided on merits within 3 months. The Court is not impressed with the arguments advanced that the partition suit cannot be maintained during the pendency of the mutation proceedings and is barred by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature only for fiscal purposes and have no bearing on the rights of the parties.
The court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Deepak/
Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a revision order rejecting a revision against an interlocutory order in mutation proceedings is maintainable.
Ravikant
State Of Up
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
