Mohd Shamim vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 578 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28943 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohd Shamim
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Pandey,Raj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Saurabh Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

The petitioner herein claims mutation of his name over the property in question on the basis of a gift deed dated 1.1.2002 in terms of judgment and decree dated 18.10.2003 passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.671 of 2003 (Mohd. Shamim Vs. Mohd. Yasin). The order impugned dated 16.6.2022 is rejection of application of the petitioner for mutation of his name in the municipal records i.e. the records of the Nagar Panchayat Ambehta, Saharanpur. A perusal of the order dated 16.6.2022 indicates that the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Ambehta has refused to mutate the name of the petitioner on the ground that in various circulars issued by the State Government, it was clarified that no mutation shall be made on the basis of a registered document.

It is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Civil suit namely O.S. No.671 of 2003 has been decided in favour of the petitioner herein on the basis of a compromise which was made part of the decree, it was not permissible for the respondent no.2 to deny mutation of the name of the petitioner herein.

To deal with this submission, it is relevant to note that neither compromise Paper No.21-Ka which was part of the civil court's decree has been brought on record nor the person against whom the petitioner had succeeded in the compromise, i.e. whose name exists in the municipal record as on date, has been impleaded in the present writ petition. In essence, the order impugned is the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for mutation of his name in the municipal records in terms of Section 147(1)(b) read with Sub section (3) of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1916). The remedy before the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 160 of the Act, 1916 by impleading the person in whose name the property in question is recorded as on date.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the observation that, in case, the petitioner files an appeal under Section 160 of the Act, 1916 by impleading the person whose name is recorded in the municipal record, within a period of three weeks from today along with the copy of this order, the same shall be decided on merit, without raising objection to the limitation in filing the same.

Order Date :- 6.1.2023

Kpy