Allahabad High Court
Smt Sundar Pati vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Revenue ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 11414 of 2017
Petitioner :- Smt Sundar Pati
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Revenue Lko And 5 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sm Singh Royekwar,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ),Manoj Kumar Singh,Sm Singh Royekwar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Vijay Tewari
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
(I.A. No.4 of 2022: Application for Correction in the Judgment and order dated 25.11.2021)
Cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2021 is corrected and after correction, the same reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mrs. Archana Rawat, learned counsel for respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Both the writ petitions arise out of highly contested mutation proceedings but the simple facts of the case are that name of Smt. Sundarpati came into revenue record on 16.06.1983 on the basis of sale deed dated 04.08.1982 executed by the original tenure holder Satgur Prasad. The same continued in revenue record till 2014 when surprisingly, the Naib Tahsildar on the basis of an alleged sale-deed executed in the year 1969, entered the name of Smt. Raj Kumari.
The law with regard to mutation is well settled. The same only gives a right to deposit land revenue and does not confer any title. For the purpose of title, the appropriate forum is regular suit before Civil Court or a suit under 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which now is, under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In the given facts, the Naib Tahsildar ought to have asked the parties to approach the regular court for getting their title considered and declared as sale-deed alleged was more than 45 years old. It was not appropriate for revenue authorities to mutate on the basis of such old documents without there being appropriate orders of a regular court. Since then, parties are contesting inter se alleging each other's documents to be forged and fraudulent. It is also claimed by the petitioner that earlier an Original Suit No.187 of 2015 was filed by respondent no.6 Smt. Raj Kumari which was dismissed in default on 30.03.2017.
All this issues cannot be decided either in mutation proceedings which are summary in nature or in a writ petition. Therefore, parties are relegated to get the issue decided by appropriate Civil Court or the Revenue Court in original proceedings.
In view thereof, all the mutation proceedings conducted meanwhile, loose relevance and are set aside and original name of petitioner as existed prior to 2014 shall continue to remain in operation till appropriate orders are passed in the regular proceedings.
With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions stand disposed of."
The application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
Rajneesh JR-PS)
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
