Praveen Pratap Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22323 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54828
 
Court No. - 18
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6970 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Praveen Pratap Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Akber Ahmad,Ayush Chaudhary
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondents is hereby dispensed with.

The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the impugned revisional Order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 2054/2016 (Chandrachood Singh Vs. Praveen Singh and Others) as contained as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2009 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Mutation Case No. 81/96/368/188/29/36/40/55/68/237 of 2008-09 (Chandrachood Singh Vs. Jagatpal Singh {dead}) as contained in Annexure-2 to this Writ Petition.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents No. 2 and 4 not to give effect to the impugned revisional order dated 30.06.2023 and impugned order dated 09.01.2009 passed by Respondents No. 2 and 4 respectively.

IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 4 to record the names of the Petitioners alongwith the legal heirs of Late Chandrachood Singh i.e. the Respondents no. 5/1, 5/2 and 5/3 in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question.

V. Such other relief, as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted by this Hon'ble Court, protecting the rights and interest of the Petitioners."

By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner(Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Revision No. 2054/2016 (Chandrachood Singh Vs. Praveen Singh and Others) as also assailed the order dated 09.01.2009 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Mutation Case No. 81/ 96/ 368/ 188/ 29/ 36/ 40/ 55/ 68/ 237 of 2008-09 (Chandrachood Singh Vs. Jagatpal Singh {dead}).

The claim of LateChandrachood Singh (predecessor in interest of Respondents no. 5/1, 5/2 and 5/3) and real brother of Late Yadunath Singh, (predecessor in interest of the petitioners), in the mutation proceedings before the respondent no.4/Naib Tehsildar, Khiro, Tehsil-Lalganj, District-Raebareli, appears to be wrongly indicated in the prayer clause as respondent no.3, was based upon the unregistered 'Will' dated 19.08.1984 of Jagatpal Singh (father of Late Yadunath Singh and Late Chandrachood Singh).

This Court finds from the impugned order dated 09.01.2009 that the respondent no.4 observed that unregistered 'Will' has been proved by adducing appropriate evidence and based upon the same as also possession of Late Chandrachood Singh over the property in dispute, impugned order dated 09.01.2009 was passed in favour of Late Chandrachood Singh. The order dated 09.01.2009 was interfered in the appeal filed under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"), vide order dated 15.10.2016, which was challenged in the revision bearing Revision No. 2054/2016 (Chandrachood Singh Vs. Praveen Singh and Others), filed under Section 219 of the Act of 1901. The revisional authority namely respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner(Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, allowed the revision vide order dated 30.06.2023, after observing, as appears from the order impugned dated 30.06.2023, that 'Will' was duly proved.

Further from the facts it appears that initially the name of Late Yadunath Singh and Late Chandrachood Singh was recorded under PA-11 on 18.11.1984 and thereafter based upon the unregistered will dated 19.08.1984, Late Chandrachood Singh executed by Jagatpal Singh (father of Late Yadunath Singh and Late Chandrachood Singh) who expired on 19.12.1984 instituted the mutation proceedings in the year 1985 and since then the dispute has not been concluded till date.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order(s) passed in mutation proceedings by the revenue court(s).

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 order 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 the 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, make 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 law related to mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a regular suit seeking declaration of their rights within a period of two months from today before appropriate Court/Forum.

In regard to interim relief, it is trite law that the authority who can pass the final order can also pass interim order. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Bhalotia vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (18) LCD 532. Relevant paras of the same read as under:-

"17. In the end we would also like to point out that if the State Government entertains a revision against an order granting permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act at the instance of a third party who is a person aggrieved it will also have power to pass interim order like stay of the operation of the order of the Vice-Chairman or staying further construction or development. In Income Tax Officer v. Mah Knnhi [ AIR 1969 SC 430.] , the Supreme Court while considering the powers conferred on Income Tax Appellate Triinterim bunal by Sections 254 and 255 of Income Tax Act observed as under:?

"It is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. When Section 254 confers appellate jurisdiction it impliedly grants the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution and that the statutory power carries with it the duty in proper cases to make such orders for staying proceedings as will prevent the appeal, if successful, from being rendered nugatory."

18. The law is well settled that every Tribunal has ancillary power to grant interim orders in order to carry out effectively the statutory duty cast upon it. If a proper case it made out, it will be open to the State Government to stay the order granting permission or to stop construction or development work otherwise it may lead to complication in the event the order granting permission is set aside or revoked."

Accordingly, it is provided that if an application seeking interim relief is preferred by the petitioners before the Court/Authority concerned in the suit, if instituted by the petitioners, the Court/Authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the interim relief sought by the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of preferring the application seeking interim relief, after service of notice upon the defendants to the suit.

Considering the fact that dispute regarding property in issue was initially arose between the real brothers namely Yadunath Singh and Chandrachood Singh and is continuing till date and presently the dispute is between the legal heirs of the persons named above, this Court is of the view that substantial justice would suffice, if the interest of both the parties is protected for a limited period. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status-quo as it exists today till disposal of application seeking interim relief.

The benefit of this order would be available to the petitioners if a suit is instituted as per this order.

With aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of .

Order Date :- 18.8.2023

Jyoti/-