Allahabad High Court
Ramjivan And Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 21 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92533
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16076 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramjivan And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey,Sukhendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Awadesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
The case of the writ petitioners who are two in number is that the writ petitioner no. 1 is the son of late Mohan Singh (since deceased) and the petitioner no. 2 is the first wife of Mohan Singh (since deceased). It is asserted that Mohan Singh during his lifetime married with Smt. Mithala who happens to be the second wife during the subsistence of the first marriage, respondent nos. 5 and 6 happened to be the grand sons of the second wife. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the deceased-Mohan Singh was the Bhumidar of Khata No. 00129 Arazi no.353 area 7.657 hectare situated in Village Tikariya Panwari, Tehsil Kulpahad, District Mahoba and he expired on 09.02.2020, however, post death of Mohan Singh, the name of the writ petitioner and contesting respondents were mutated on the basis of succession having half-half shares. However, according to the writ petitioner, the fourth respondent manipulated a will dated 09.07.2019 executed by the deceased bequeathing the entire his share in favour of the contesting respondents. A proceeding under Section 34 is stated to have been initiated under Section 34 by the contesting respondents to which objection was preferred. Since there were two mutation proceedings, first of the writ petitioner fraction and the second of the contesting respondents fraction thus by virtue of an impugned order dated 30.06.2022, the said mutation proceedings were consolidated together , aggrieved against which, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, District Mahoba, Tehsil Kulpahad which came to be rejected on 29.11.2023.
Questioning the said orders, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that that first of all, in the matter of dispute pertaining to the proving of a will that the mutation proceedings could not be entertained as the only recouse available was to institute proceedings under common law, he seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (c) No. 13146 of 2021 decided on 06.09.2011, additionally, it has been argued that in view of the provisions contained under Section 225-F of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where two or more cases involving substantially the same question of determination and based on the same cause of action are pending in the different Courts then on an application made by a party, the same are to be consolidated.
Submission is that in the present case, though the demise property is one but the entitlement is relatable to different claims, thus, according to him, the case could not be consolidated.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the writ petitioner, particularly, in view of the fact that mere consolidation will not in any manner whatsoever create any additional right upon the contesting respondents as two cases pertaining to the same subject matter (same property) are being consolidated and it is always open for the writ petitioner to argue and plead that the said proceedings are not maintainable in the wake of the judgment in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra).
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.
It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner claims himself to be the successor of the deceased being the first wife and the son and the contesting respondents being the second wives. It is also not in dispute that the property is one. Thus, in the opinion of the Court in the facts and circumstances, no prejudice will be caused, in case, the mutation cases are consolidated together. So far as issues with regard to entertaining of the mutation cases based upon the disputed question relating to will and the suspicious circumstances in that regard is concerned, it is always open for the writ petitioner to raise all the grounds relatable to non-entertaining of the proceedings and also the law as the writ petitioner claims to be in his favour in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra).
In view of the said factual position, the writ petition stands consigned to record, declining to interfere with the order dated 30.06.2022 of the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kulpahad, District Mahoba, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to raise all the legal and factual pleas regarding maintainability of the mutation proceedings.
Order Date :- 21.5.2024
A. Prajapati
