Deep Narayan Prasad vs Board Of Revenue And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1416 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

​​​​​​A.F.R.
 
Reserved on 05.12.2022
 
Delivered on 13.01.2023
 
Court No. - 07 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 921 of 2020 
 
Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Prasad 
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 3 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jitendra Kumar Yadav,R.K.R. Sharma 
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 4 are real brothers. A registered will deed was executed by petitioner's father Vijay Prasad on 17.01.2002 in favour of petitioner in respect of his entire property situated in Village Sonvarsha, Bahuara and Araji Mafi Bal Govind Ram Upadhaya. Petitioner's father Vijay Prasad died on 12.10.2009, accordingly petitioner applied for mutation of his name on the basis of registered will deed executed on 17.01.2002 by late Vijay Prasad. The cases were registered as Case Nos. 552, 553 and 554. Respondent No. 4 also applied for mutation of his name on the basis of a will deed executed on 28.01.2002 which were registered as Case Nos. 626, 627 and 628. During pendency of the mutation case, respondent No. 4 filed a civil suit No. 333 of 2010 challenging the validity of the will deed dated 17.01.2002 executed in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent No. 4 and petitioner have entered into a compromise on 02.01.2015 in Civil Suit No 333 of 2010. Accordingly, Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 was decreed in terms of compromise vide judgement dated 20.01.2015. A compromise was also entered into between both parties in aforementioned mutation cases 552 553 and 554 accordingly, an order was passed by respondent No. 3 in the mutation proceeding to record the name of petitioner in place of deceased tenure holder Vijay Prasad vide order dated 26.05.2016. After passing of order dated 26.05.2016, a recall application has been filed by respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 3 and vide order dated 17.05.2018 respondent No. 3 ordered to expunge the name of petitioner and to record the name of petitoner as well as respondent No. 4 being natural heirs of deceased Vijay Prasad. Against the order dated 17.05.2018 petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 taking specific ground that civil suit in respect to the registered will deed in question has been decided in favour of petitioner vide order dated 20.01.2015 but the appellate court without considering the same has dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 31.12.2018 on the ground that will deed has not been proved in accordance with law. Petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar as well as order of the appellate court before Board of Revenue through revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue has entertained the revision filed by petitioner and granted an interim order in the pending revision but after hearing both parties Board of Revenue has dismissed the petitioner's revision vide order dated 04.03.2020, hence this writ petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, has passed the following order dated 06.08.2020:-

"Shri R.K.R. Sharma, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of respondent no. 2 after having obtained the no objection of Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, who had filed a caveat in this case.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his mutation application stands dismissed by the impugned order, although, the parties had entered into a compromise before the civil court, which is an admitted fact. The compromise admitted petitioner's claim.

Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 may file a counter affidavit within three weeks.

Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter for admission/final disposal."

4. On 20.09.2022 this Court passed the following interim order dated 20.09.2022:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the civil court has decided the civil suit filed by contesting respondent in respect to will deed in question on the basis of compromise which has attained finality and in the subsequent suit filed by contesting respondent, no injunction is operating.

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, no alienation shall be made by the parties in respect to property in dispute.

List this petition on 10.10.2022."

5. On 14.10.2022 interim order granted on 20.09.2022 was extended till further orders of this Court.

6. Respondent No. 4 has filed his counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has claimed the right on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002. He further submitted that civil suit filed by respondent No. 4 for cancellation of the petitioner's registered will deed has been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in the Civil Court vide judgement dated 20.01.2015 and the compromise application dated 02.01.2015 has been made part of the judgment and decree. He further submitted that in the compromise application signed by both the parties it is specifically mentioned that defendant of the Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 namely Deep Narayan will be recorded on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002 and the plaintiff Prem Chandra will have no objection regarding the same. He further submitted that unless the compromise decree of the Civil Court is recalled/ set aside/ modified the mutation Court has no jurisdiction to alter the revenue entry in respect to the plot in dispute. He further submitted that impugned orders have been passed arbitrarily as such, the same are liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that will deed in question is a fictitious document. He further submitted that earlier suit No. 333 of 2010 filed by petitioner was an act of petitioner in order to obtain fraudulent compromise decree. He further submitted that compromise decree is vague decree and the same cannot be relied upon in any proceeding. He further submitted that mutation of the petitioner as well as contesting respondent No. 4 has been rightly ordered by the mutation court and petitioner have no right to challenge the same before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the impugned order has been passed in the summary proceedings as such writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Petitioner claims the right on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002 executed by petitioner's father Vijay Prasad, who died on 12.10.2009. According to petitioner, compromise decree has been passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010, by which right has been given to petitioner to get his name recorded in the revenue record on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002, although respondent No. 4 is denying the validity of the decree of civil court passed in Suit No. 333 of 2010 as such, respondent No. 4 has filed subsequent Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration to the effect that plaintiff Deep Narayan Prasad be declared legal heir of ½ share and will deed dated 17.01.2002 be declared void and ineffective, it is also prayed in the suit that compromise decree dated 04.02.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 be also declared void and ineffective. The mutation court initially passed the order for recording the name of the petitioner only but subsequently passed the order to record the name of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.4 being natural heir of declared Vijay Prasad.

11. Since, the Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 4 for declaration and injunction has been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between Prem Chandra and Deep Narayan and the suit was decided on the basis of compromise application dated 02.01.2015. The averments made in the paragraph No.4 of the compromise application dated 02.01.2015 is as under:-

"न्यायालय सिविल जज सीनियर डिवीजन बलिया

मु.न. 333/10 96 क

प्रेमचन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायण

4. एकरार व बयान मुझ वादी यह है कि çfroknh को सभी अधिकार हासिल है जो पिता वादी को हासिल थे। çfroknh अपना नाम कागजात सरकारी में मुताबिक पंजीकृत वसीयत दिनांक 17.01.2002 के अाधार पर दर्ज करा लेंगे। इसमें मुझ वादी को कोई उज व एतराज न होगा। "

12. The oral statement of Prem Chand (plaintiff) recorded in Suit No. 333 of 2010 is as under:-

"न्यायालय सिविल जज सीनियर डिवीजन बलिया

मु.न. 333/10 94 क 2

प्रेमचन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायण

दिनांक -5-01-2015

सीक्षीः- प्रेमचन्द्र उम्र लगभग 50 वर्ष', पेशे से दुकानदार/ पुत्र स्व. विजय प्रसाद सा. चिरंजी छपरा परगना द्वाबा जिला बलिया।

हलफनामा बयान किया गया है कि-

विजय प्रसाद के दो लड़के प्रेमचन्द्र व दीपनारायण हैं। लालगंज बाजार में हम लोगों की दुकान है। उसे प्रेमचन्द्र चलाते हैं। पिताजी ने जो वसीयत किया था वह सही है। उसी वसीयत के बावत मैंने मुकदमा किया था। वसीयत में मेरे पिता जी द्वारा दिनांक 17-01-02 को रजिस्टर्ड दीपनारायण के पक्ष में लिखा गया था। अब गाँव के प्रतिष्ठित व्यक्ति सुमेर सिंह व सुनील सिंह की गवाहान से सुलह हो गया है। सुलहनामे का कागज जो पंचों ने लिखा है, वह मेरे पास है। इस मुकदमे में मैंने सुलहनामा दाखिल किया है, उसके अनुसार मुकदमे का फैसला कर दिया जाए।

सुनकर तसदीक किया गया है।

प्रेमचन्द्र प्रसाद

बयान मेरे बोलने पर is'kdkjद्वारा लिखा गया है।

g0 & lh0 th0 ,l0 Mh0

05.01.2015"

13. The compromise application dated 02.01.2015 contains very specific Paragraph No. 4 to the effect that defendant Deep Narayan will get his name recorded on the basis of registered will dated 17.01.2002 in the revenue records and the plaintiff Prem Chandra will have no objection regarding the same. In the oral Statement of plaintiff Prem Chand dated 05.01.2015 he admitted the compromise between plaintiff and defendant accordingly civil suit was decided on the basis of compromise decree dated 02.01.2015. The operative portion of the compromise decree passed by civil Court is as follows:-

 

 

 
"न्यायालय सिविल जज सीनियर डिवीजन बलिया
 

 
मु.न. 333/10    98  क1              98  क1
 

 

 
प्रेमचन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायण
 
                      
 
" प्रेमचन्द्र प्रसाद उम्र अंदाजी 45 वर्ष पुत्र स्व. विजय प्रसाद उर्फ छोटकन प्रसाद, सा. चिरंजी छपरा पत्रालय सूर्यभानपुर, परगना द्वाबा जिला बलिया।
 
....वादी
 
बनाम
 

 
दीप नारायन प्रसाद उम्र अंदाजी 52 वर्ष पुत्र स्व. विजय प्रसाद उर्फ छोटकन प्रसाद, सा. चिरंजी छपरा पत्रालय सूर्यभानपुर, परगना द्वाबा जिला बलिया।
 
....प्रतिवादी
 

...................................................................................................................................................................

आदेश

वादी का वाद पक्षों के बयानात एवं कागजात दिनांकित 02.01.2015 में वर्णित कथन के आधार पर डिक्री किया जाता है। बयानात एवं कागजात दिनांकित 02.01.2015 डिक्री का भाग होगा। उभय पक्ष अपना वाद व्यय स्वयं वहन करेंगे।

दिनांकः- 20-01-2015

(एस.एन.सिंह)

सिविल जज (वरिष्ठ वर्ग),

बलिया।"

14. It is also relevant to mention that, respondent No. 4 Prem Chandra instituted Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration and injunction to the effect that will deed dated 17.01.2002 as well as the compromise decree dated 20.01.2015 be declared void and ineffective. The subsequent Suit No. 1037 of 2020 is still pending for adjudication before the civil court between the parties, the copy of the plaint of Civil Suit No.1037 of 2020 has been annexed by respondent No.4 himself along with counter affidavit as Annexure C.A.-1, the relief clause of plaint will be relevant which is as follows:-

"न्ययालय सिविल जज (tw0 fM0) iwohZबलिया

okn la[;k [email protected]

izsepUnz mez r[k0 55 lky iq= Lo0 fot; izlkn mQZ NksVdu izlkn] xzke fpjath Nijk] iks0 lw;Zhkkuiqj] ijxuk }kck] ftyk cfy;kA

oknh eks0 ua0 8896725495

cuke

nhi ukjk;.k izlkn mez r[k0 62 lky iq= Lo0 fot;k izlkn mQZ NksVdu izlkn] xzke fpjath Nijk] iks0 lw;Zhkkuiqj] ijxuk }kck] ftyk cfy;k

"11- उपरोक्त वादी निम्नलिखित अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी हैः-

अ- यह कि डिक्री घोषणात्मक वहक वादी खिलाफ प्रतिवादी पारित किया जाये कि वादी सम्पत्ति जिसका विवरण वाद पत्र के अन्त में दिया गया है का वरासतन वकदर ½ का हिस्सेदार है तथा यह भी घोषित किया जावे कि वसीयतनामा दिनांक 07.01.2002 एवं दिनांक 17.01.2002 निष्पादक स्व. विजय प्रसाद उर्फ छोटकन वहक प्रतिवादी शून्य वो निष्प्रभावी है तथा यह उद्घोषित किया जावे कि सुलहनामा डिक्री दिनांक 04.02.2015 पारित न्यायालय सिविल जज (सी.डी.) बलिया मु.नं. 333/2010 प्रेमचन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायन प्रसाद शून्य व निष्प्रभावी है तथा उक्त डिक्री का असर वादी के राईट, टाइटिल व इन्टरेस्ट पर नहीं पड़ता है।

ब- यह कि वजरिये हुक्म इम्तनाई दवामी प्रतिवादी को मना किया जावे कि उपरोक्त दोनो वसीयतनामा दिनांक 07.01.2002 व 17.01.2002 निष्पादक विजय प्रसाद उर्फ छोटकन वहक प्रतिवादी के आधार पर जायदाद जिसका विवरण वाद पत्र के अन्त में दिया गया है के हक व हिस्सा वकदर ½ भाग के अनुसार वादी के कब्जा दखल में न तो किसी भी प्रकार से कोई मुजाहिमत करे न कराये न उसके किसी भाग का विक्री करे न किसी प्रकार का अंतरण करे न ही कोई ऐसा कार्य करे जिससे उक्त सम्पूर्ण जायदाद पर हम वादी के तन्हा कब्जा दखल में कोई मुजाहिमत व व्यवधान न डाले।

स- यह कि खर्चा मुकदमा हम वादी को प्रतिवादी से दिलवा दिया जावे।

द- यह कि अलावे ख्वाह बजाय दादरसी बाला के जिस किसी दीगर दादरसी के मुश्तहक हम वादी वनजदीक राय अदालत करार पाये जावे उसकी भी डिक्री वहक वादी विरूद्ध प्रतिवादी सादिर फरमायी जावे।"

15. In view of the aforementioned fact that decree of civil court dated 20.01.2015 has not been recalled/set aside/modified by any Court as such, the name of the petitioner could not be expunged from the revenue records unless the decree of the civil court dated 20.01.2015 is recalled/set aside/modified.

16. The courts below in exercise of power under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act arbitrarily ordered vide order dated 17.05.2018 for recording the name of respondent No. 4 along with petitioner and expunged the name of the petitioner, who was recorded exclusively on the basis of compromise decree of Civil Court dated 20.01.2015 in place of their father Vijay Prasad. The order of Tehsildar dated 17.05.2018 has been maintained in appeal and revision arbitrarily, which is against the order passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010.

17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances the case, the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, order dated 31.12.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 Up-Ziladhikari, Bairiya, District-Ballia and order dated 17.05.2018 passed by respondent No. 3- Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bairiya, District- Ballia are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.

19. Respondents are directed to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of compromise decree dated 20.01.2015 passed by civil court in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010, which shall be subject to the final adjudication of subsequent Civil Suit No.1037 of 2020 filed by respondent No.4 in the civil court at Ballia.

20. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 13.01.2023

Kalpnath/P.S*