Allahabad High Court
Samadei vs State Of U.P. And 16 Others on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31883 of 2022
Petitioner :- Samadei
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 16 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Kishore Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Shambhavi Nandan
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Brij Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7 & 10 to 15, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent - Land Management Committee and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Kattar was the recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute. It is also submitted that the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been initiated by the contesting respondents on the basis of an unregistered will deed dated 6.3.1992, executed by the recorded tenure holder Kattar in favour of the contesting respondents. The Tehsildar vide order dated 14.7.2000 allowed the mutation application and ordered to record the name of the contesting respondent in place of deceased Kattar. The petitioner who claims to be the daughter of deceased Kattar, filed a restoration application / recall application after 17 years i.e. on 3.4.2017 for recalling the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar on 14.7.2000. The Tehsildar vide order dated 22.2.2021 rejected the restoration / recall application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 22.2.2021 though revision before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2022. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has applied for restoration against the order of the Tehsildar passed in favour of the contesting respondents but the restoration has been rejected on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. It is next submitted that in place of deciding the matter on technical grounds, matter should be adjudicated on merits. It is also submitted that the impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back before the Tehsildar to consider the petitioner's restoration application and decide the mutation case on merits.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the contesting respondents filed mutation application on the basis of will deed dated 6.3.1992, which has not been cancelled by any court of law, as such, the restoration application filed by the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law. He also submitted that the restoration has been filed after 17 years although petitioner claims herself to be the daughter of the deceased but she did not file any application for mutation after death of the recorded tenure holder Kakkar. He further submitted that restoration application filed by the contesting respondent has been rightly rejected by the Tehsildar and the order has been rightly affirmed in the revision, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He further submitted that writ petition arises out of summary proceeding is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this court in Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue and Others, reported in (2022) 155 R.D. 169.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the mutation application on the basis of the will deed filed by the contesting respondents has been allowed by the Tehsildar in the year 2000 and there is also no dispute about the fact that the restoration application has been filed by the petitioner after 17 years which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
7. Since the mutation order has been passed 17 years back, on the basis of the will deed executed by the recorded tenure holder, as such, filing of restoration application after 17 years by petitioners, who are claiming herself to be the daughter of deceased, against the mutation order is an abuse of process of law. The impugned order has been passed in the summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as such, no interference is required against the impugned orders.
8. It is also material that petitioner being daughter of deceased tenure holder, has not taken any steps to get her name recorded even after expiry of 17 years from the death of her father who was recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute.
8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. It is always open to the petitioner to get her right and title determined before the regular court and the impugned orders passed in the summary proceeding or any observations made in the body of this judgment will not come in the way of the petitioner to get her right and title determined before the regular court.
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
C.Prakash
