Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar vs Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, ... on 9 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52751
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6808 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar
Respondent :- Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Purnima Mayank,Vijay Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6/Kunne (contesting respondent), who was substituted in place of Manchinta in the revision, which was filed challenging the order dated 11.07.1980 passed in favour of Manchinta.
In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to other private respondents is hereby dispensed with.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari thereby quashing the arbitrary and illegal impugned judgment and orders dated 11.5.2023 passed by the opp. party no. 1 in Revision no. 00149/2018, Computer case no. C201808000000149, Somai versus Manchinta and others under section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and judgment and order dated 11.7.1980 passed by the opp. party no. 2 in Appeal no. 27/86 Manchinta and others versus Somai and others, under section 210 of the U.P. LR act contained as Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the writ petition."
Admittedly, the orders, under challenge, have been passed in the mutation proceedings.
It is undisputed that the recorded tenure holder of the property/land, in issue, was Chhadu and in relation to the same, the initial order in mutation Case No. 89/119 (Somai vs. Ram Samujh) was passed on 30.09.1978 by the respondent No. 3/Tehsildar, District Gonda. This order was based upon the statements of witnesses appeared before the respondent No. 3. The order dated 30.09.1978 was passed in favour of Somai, predecessor in interest of the petitioner.
The order dated 30.09.1978 was challenged in Appeal No. 86/87/104 by one Manchinta D/o Chhadu, which was filed under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"). The Appellate Authority/respondent No. 2/Additional Sub-Divisional Officer First Class, Gonda allowed the appeal vide order dated 11.07.1980. This order was passed on the basis of documentary and oral evidence as also taking note of the fact pertaining to possession over the land in issue.
It appears from the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 that while passing the same, the respondent No. 1/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda considered and discussed the entire aspect of the case.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.
Section 40A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. Mutation of a property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.
Considering the facts of the case, indicated in brief hereinabove, as also the age of litigation, I am of the view that the issue involved in this petition requires proper adjudication and accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to institute a regular suit seeking declaration of his rights over the property in dispute within three months from today before appropriate Court/Forum.
Taking note of the dispute which is pending since 1978 and has not resolved as yet, it is provided that the Authority/Court concerned shall consider and decide the suit, if instituted, expeditiously. For conclusion of proceedings expeditiously, the Authority/Court concerned shall avoid adjournments.
As regards interim relief, this Court is of the view that justice would suffice if liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an application seeking interim protection, which shall be disposed of by the Authority/Court concerned within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application.
As has not been opposed by the counsel for the contesting respondent No. 6, till the period of three months or disposal of application for interim relief, the parties shall maintain status-quo regarding the property, in issue, meaning thereby that the property/land, in issue, shall not be transferred or alienated and no charge shall be created over the same.
It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned Authority/Court would pass the order(s) including the interim order after due consideration of the facts of the case and the law on the issue.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.8.2023/Arun/-
