Allahabad High Court
Chandreswar Prasad Misra vs The Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34735
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 423 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chandreswar Prasad Misra
Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Rajeev Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Meera Jain
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.4, the same is taken on record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1 i.e. the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No.1364 of 2021/Ayodhya, Computerized Case No.R20210423001364 (Chandreswar Prasad Misra vs. Jagannath & others) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 901 and the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the opposite party No.2 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Revision No.00226 of 2019, Computerized Case No.C201904000000226, under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition."
Undisputedly, the proceedings in question emanated from the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act, 1901") i.e. the mutation proceedings. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and in a summary proceeding of mutation the title of any property may not be determined. The mutation proceedings are meant only for realization of land revenue.
In the present case, the parties in question are in the litigation since 2013 and in some proceedings the orders have been passed in favour of the petitioner and in some proceedings the orders have been passed in favour of the private opposite parties.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting the revision of the petitioner which was filed under Section 219 of the Act, 1901.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was dispute regarding the residential house of late Shamsher. The petitioner filed a civil suit bearing Regular Suit No.157 of 1998 regarding the said house against the present contesting opposite parties in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad. The said suit has erroneously been dismissed by the learned civil court vide order dated 08.10.2018. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2018 passed by the learned civil court, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.77 of 2018, under Section 96 C.P.C. in the Court of District Judge, Faizabad and after admission, the same was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Faizabad where the aforesaid appeal is pending consideration.
The Revisional Authority in the order dated 21.04.2023 has categorically indicated that since the appeal is pending consideration before the Appellate Court wherein the authenticity of one registered Will deed dated 07.08.1989, which has allegedly been executed in favour of the private opposite parties, is under challenge and the outcome of the aforesaid appeal would have impact over the proceedings of Section 34 of the Act, 1901 inasmuch as the mutation proceedings shall remain subject to final decision/ outcome of the pending appeal. The Revisional Court by observing the aforesaid legal position has rejected the revision of the petitioner.
Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate as well as Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties have stated that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue inasmuch as the Revisional Authority has rightly observed that the mutation proceedings shall remain subject to final decision of the pending appeal for the reason that from the outcome of the appeal the title of the property in question may be determined subject to further challenge but in the mutation proceedings the title of the property may not be determined.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am also of the considered opinion that if a subject matter of any property is under consideration before the Appellate Court, more particularly in an appeal, the final outcome of the civil proceedings decided by the Appellate Court would have impact over the mutation proceedings which are summary in nature and all the orders being passed in the summary proceedings, particularly in the mutation proceedings, shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings concluded by the Appellate Court in an appeal.
Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 31.07.2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 21.04.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed at this stage.
However, it is expected from the Appellate Authority where the appeal is pending consideration to expedite the proceedings strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
It is needless to say that for getting interim protection the petitioner may file appropriate application before the Appellate Court and the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, with expedition.
It is made clear that I am not entering into merits of the issue, therefore, learned Appellate Court shall decide the pending appeal independently without there being influenced on any of the findings or observations of this order.
Order Date :- 18.5.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Suresh/
