Prabhakar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65670

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6499 of 2025

Petitioner :- Prabhakar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Ram Bind Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bal Ram Bind, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amresh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1, 2 & 3.

¶7

Notice on behalf of Land Management Committee-respondent no.6 has been accepted by Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and the father of the respondent nos.4 & 5 namely (Late) Ram Chandra were entered in the revenue records (P.A.-11) on 30.12.2001 being the sons of (Late) Chhangoo, in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and since then the petitioner is in actual physical possession of his share in the property in question. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos.4 & 5 on the basis of an alleged Will dated 22.01.1993, claimed mutation in respect of the property in question by moving an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. The said mutation case was registered as Case No.329 of 2002 in the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Dobhi, TehsilKerakat, District- Jaunpur.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on an application for interim relief filed by the respondent nos.4 & 5 in the aforesaid mutation case, the learned Naib Tehsildar without taking into consideration the fact that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record (P.A.-11) on 30.12.2001 and that the possession of the petitioner over the property is undisputed, passed an ex-parte

¶10

stay order on 16.02.2002 staying the earlier order dated 30.12.2001 till the disposal of the mutation application.

¶11

Aggrieved by the said ex-parte stay order dated 16.02.2002, the petitioner preferred revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Court of learned Commissioner, Varanasi Division. In the said revision, the learned Additional Commissioner (First), Varanasi Division vide the interim order dated 21.04.2004 stayed the operation of the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2002, issued notices and summoned the lower court record.

¶12

The said Revision No.227 of 2004 came to be finally decided vide order dated 11.11.2024. The learned Court of Additional Commissioner (respondent no.2) dismissed the said revision on the ground of maintainability holding therein that the order under challenge in the revision is of interim nature and not a final order and accordingly rejected the said revision.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the nature of the impugned order dated 16.02.2002 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Kerakat in the mutation proceedings wherein the earlier order dated 30.12.2001 was stayed and the direction to make Amaldaramad in the revenue records substantially affected the rights of the petitioner and as such the same can not be termed as interim order and the revision was very much maintainable, but the learned Revisional Court without analyzing the character of the impugned order and appreciating the merits of the case, passed the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 in the most mechanical manner. He very emphatically argued that the learned Revisional Court has misconstrued the impugned order dated 16.02.2002 to be an interlocutory order.

¶14

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent raised preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the present writ petition. He submitted that the present writ petition is arising out of the mutation proceedings which is admittedly of summary in nature, is not entertainable under

¶15

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Defending the impugned orders, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 is perfectly in accordance with law as the revision filed by the petitioner was against the interlocutory order therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner (respondent no.2) has rightly rejected the said revision on the ground of maintainability.

¶17

It has also been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the mutation proceedings having Case No.635/20/28/329 (Nishad Madhurmay & another versus Gaon Sabha & others) under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 is pending before the Court of learned Naib Tehsildar (respondent no.3) and as such the petitioner has sufficient chance to agitate against the passing of the aforesaid interim order dated 16.02.2002 by filing an appropriate application for vacation of the same before the Court where the mutation case is pending.

¶18

Confronted with the aforesaid objection regarding the entertainability of the present writ petition, raised by the learned Standing Counsel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his prayer to the extent that the present writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Court of learned Naib Tehsildar (respondent no.3) to expeditiously decide the aforesaid mutation case, within the time frame as to be fixed by this Court. He also prayed for liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application for vacation of the interim order dated 16.02.2002, in the aforesaid mutation case.

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.4 & 5 is dispensed with.

¶21

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties present before the Court, this Court deems it

¶22

appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the Naib Tehsildar, Area Dobhi, Tehsil- Kerakat, District- Jaunpur (respondent No.3), to conclude the proceeding of aforesaid Mutation Case No. 635/20/28/329, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment.

¶23

As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application for vacation of the interim order dated 16.02.2002 before the Court concerned. It is provided that if any such application is filed on behalf of the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of the same.

¶24

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶25

Order Date :- 28.4.2025/Abhishek Gupta

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabhakar v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Pan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Sitapur vs Mrs. Neela Chavhan

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lko. Thru. Housing Commissioner vs Bhupendra Prasad Singh

Smt. Sangeeta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ifci Infrastructure Developers Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Rajneesh Sharma vs Ram Dayal

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and 4 Others vs Mr. Anubhav Verma, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gonda

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Limited Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory