Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sushila Devi And 3 Ors. vs Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow ... on 21 November, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
Court No. - 21
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7644 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt. Sushila Devi And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow Thru Member Juducial & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Balak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri Tripathi B.G.Balak, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The classical Indian mentality of not permitting the ladies to hold agricultural land is also displayed in this writ petition.
Badri Prasad had three sons Lalta Prasad, Shyam Prasad and Janak Prasad. Petitioners are wife and sons of Janak Prasad. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Lalta Prasad and Shyam Prasad died during the life time of Badri Prasad. After the death of Badri Prasad names of Janak Prasad and Smt. Sundar Patti widow of Shyam Prasad opposite party no. 3 and Smt. Dal Singari widow of Lalta Prasad were recorded in the revenue record. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Badri Prasad had executed some Will in favour of petitioners nos. 2 to 4, his grand sons. The court thrice inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether Janak Prasad father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 was acting against the interest of his sons ? Learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any reply to the said query. In case there had been any Will by Badri Prasad in favour of sons of Janak Prasad i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 4, Janak Prasad would not have got recorded his name in the revenue record. Moreover Janak Prasad and petitioners no. 2 to 4 would not have permitted the widows of Lalta Prasad and Shyam Prasad predeceased sons of Badri Prasad to get their names recorded in the revenue records. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the Will Smt. Sundar Patti was restrained from alienating property. Even if in some document such condition was there it was meaningless. Moreover name of Smt. Sundar Patti was recorded in the revenue record not on the basis of any Will etc. but on the basis of inheritance.
This writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings. The last order which has been challenged is dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue Lucknow dismissing Revision No. 3032 (L.R.) of 2008-09 Janak Prasad Vs. Sundarpatti and others. The mutation courts have directed for mutation of the name of respondent no. 4 Smt. Kamla Devi, on the basis of sale deed executed in her favour by opposite party no. 3, who was recorded tenure holder till then. Board of Revenue has mentioned that Smt. Sundar Patti sold only her share in the agricultural land in dispute.
Accordingly I do not find least error in the impugned orders. Writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.11.2013
Deepak
