Allahabad High Court
Shobhnath vs Board Of Revenue And 11 Others on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113411
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2019 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shobhnath
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 11 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Maurya,Panchu Ram Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Pradeep Singh
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Panchu Ram Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1,2,3,4 and 12. Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appears for respondent no.7. Sri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel appears for respondent no.5-Gram Sabha.
Under challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 18.1.2008, passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur on a restoration application filed by Babu Lal, husband of respondent no.6 and father of respondent no.7 to 10 passed in Case No. 238/515/2003, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Also under challenge is the order dated 16.3.2023, passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow in Case No. REV/2225/2007-2008/Mirzapur, Computerized Case No. R200816310033175, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 18.1.2008 was dismissed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid Babu Lal executed a sale deed dated 9.6.2003 in favour of one Shanker, who is respondent no. 11 in the present writ petition, in respect of Plot No. 114 at village Kataran, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur. Mutation was made accordingly in the revenue record pursuant to an order dated 6.8.2003. Thereafter, the aforesaid plot of land was transferred by respondent no.11 in favour of petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2005. It is stated that in mutation proceedings bearing Case No. 179 of 2008, by an order dated 3.12.2007, the Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur passed an order of mutation in favour of petitioner, which order has not been challenged by any person. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the aforesaid Babu Lal filed a restoration application against the order dated 6.8.2003 for setting aside the mutation made in favour of Shanker with respect to the aforesaid plot in dispute.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order dated 18.1.2008, the order dated 6.8.2003 was partially modified with respect to Plot No. 114 and the name of respondent no.11 was struck off and the name of Babu Lal was directed to be registered. Since, the order dated 18.1.2008 would have a bearing on the rights of petitioner with regard to the plot in dispute, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which revision was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.3.2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before the Board of Revenue, a categorical stand was taken by the petitioner that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 9.6.2003 executed by the aforesaid Babu Lal was filed by the Babu Lal which came to be dismissed and the first appeal filed by him was also dismissed. It is stated that without looking into this aspect of the matter, the Board of Revenue has passed order in the revision by dismissing it. It is stated that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2008 which was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel has referred to the order of the Board of Revenue to contend that heirs of aforesaid Babu Lal had filed a Second Appeal before this Court against the order of the first appellate court dismissing the suit of Babu Lal filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 9.6.2003 which Second Appeal is pending. It is stated that an order of status quo has already been passed in the second appeal which all facts have been concealed in the present writ petition.
As is evident from the record that an order of mutation had already been passed in favour of the petitioner on 3.12.2007 by the Tehsildar which order has not been challenged yet before any court. The order of mutation is in respect of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner of the plot in dispute on 28.10.2005 by the respondent no.11. In the application filed by the aforesaid Babu Lal, seeking setting aside of the order dated 6.8.2003 which is an order of mutation in respect of plot in dispute passed subsequent to the sale deed dated 9.6.2003, the petitioner is party respondent no.2. The order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 18.1.2008 is an order passed on the aforesaid application of Babu Lal.
It appears from the order passed in the revision by the Board of Revenue, against the judgment dated 30.3.2013 passed on an appeal filed by the aforesaid Babu Lal, a Second Appeal No. 1139 of 2022 was filed by the heirs of Babu Lal in the High Court in which by an order dated 14.12.2022, status quo was required to be maintained with respect to the plot in dispute and the aforesaid second appeal is still pending. The Board has rightly observed that the second appeal that is pending before the High Court pertains to the sale deed, of which cancellation has been sought in the suit. The Board has, therefore, observed that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and, therefore, till validity of the sale deed in question is not decided, the proceedings for mutation cannot be stopped. The Board has held that the order dated 24.12.2007 and 18.1.2008 are based on the facts and evidence and no error is reflected therein. The revision was, accordingly, dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not enclosed the order dated 24.12.2007 with this writ petition.
Be that as it may, as has been held by various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not confer any title on the person seeking mutation. It is for the person who seeks declaration of his title to file an appropriate suit before the competent court for that relief. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J)
