Allahabad High Court
Umrawati @ Gudiya vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169330
Court No. - 51
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18897 of 2023
Petitioner :- Umrawati @ Gudiya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,Anil Kumar Verma,Ravindra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmaveer Singh,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1.Heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shridhar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Shivendra Nath Singh, holding the brief of Mr. Dharmaveer Singh, Counsel for respondent No.6 and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Counsel for respondent No.5/Gram Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated by petitioner on the basis of succession to record her name in place of deceased tenure holder-Ram Sakal. The case was registered as Case No.310/3032 in the Court of Tehsildar, Judicial, Rasra, District-Ballia. Tehsildar vide order dated 04.03.2013 allowed mutation application and ordered to record the name of petitioner in place of deceased-Ram Sakal in respect to plots of khata nos. 149, 296 and 297 situated in village Mundera, Pargana-Lakhneshwar, District-Ballia as well as plot of khata No.23 situated in village-Sardilpur, Pargana-Lakhneshwar, District-Ballia. Against the order dated 04.03.2013, an application for restoration/recall has been filed by respondent No.6 to recall the order dated 04.03.2013. Tehsildar vide order dated 11.08.2015 dismissed the restoration/ recall application filed by respondent No.6. Against the order dated 04.03.2013 and 11.08.2015 respondent No.6 filed an appeal under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Sub-Divisonal Officer vide order dated 28.01.2019 allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 11.08.2015/ 04.03.2013 and remand the matter back before the Tehsildar to examine issues again as to whether petitioner is entitled to be recorded on the basis of succession or respondent No.6 is entitled to be recorded on the basis of succession. Again, Petitioner challenged the order dated 28.01.2019 through revision before Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. Respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner vide order dated 28.03.2023 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner, hence this writ petition challenging the order 28.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 28.01.2019 passed by respondent No.3.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's claim under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was allowed by the Tehsildar on the basis of daughter of deceased tenure holder-Ram Sakal. He further submitted that against the order of Tehsildar, restoration application was filed by respondent No.6, which was rejected recording the finding that deceased Ram Sakal had no issue and claim as set-up by the petitioner was rightly allowed by the Tehsildar. He further submitted that against the dismissal of the restoration application filed by respondent No.6, an appeal filed by respondent No.6 has been allowed and matter has been remanded back before the Tehsildar for fresh decision of the mutation case. He further submitted that against the appellate order, revision has been filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He further placed copy of the pariwar register, in which some manipulation was alleged to be made in collusion of the authorities. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are totally illegal and arbitrary, as such the same are liable to be quashed and order of Tehsildar dated 04.03.2013 be affirmed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shivendra Nath Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Mr. Shridhar Tripathi learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondents submitted that no proper opportunity was afforded to the respondent No.6 before passing the mutation order dated 04.03.2013 in favour of the petitioner. They further submitted that deceased-tenure holder-Ram Sakal was married but his wife was expired during the life time of Ram Sakal and there was no children from their wedlock. They further submitted that writ petition arises out of mutation proceeding as well as against remand order passed in appeal, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order arising out of mutation proceeding. Counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court reported in 2022 0 Supreme (All) 281 Smt. Kalawati Vs. the Board of Revenue and others 2022 0 Supreme (All) 281 in order to demonstrate that writ petition against the order passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that mutation order has been passed in favour of the petitioner but in appeal filed by respondent No.6, matter has been remanded back before Tehsildar for fresh disposal of mutation case.
7. Finding has been recorded by appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.6 and remanding the case before Tehsildar to examine the case of parties afresh as both parties are claiming mutation on the basis of succession.
8. Considering the findings recorded by the appellate court while remanding the matter before Tehsildar to decide the mutation case afresh in accordance with law, no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. However, Tehsildar is directed to decide the mutation case, which is pending since 2013 in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order dated: 22.08.2023
PS*
