Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 16 Others on 29 May, 2024
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97510
RESERVED
In Chamber
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 318 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 16 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey,C.S.C.,Satya Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.
1. Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, when the matter was listed on 24.5.2024. Despite the list being revised, no one appeared for the respondents.
2. The order sought to be reviewed is dated 15.5.2023 passed by this Court whereby the Writ-B No.1446 of 2023 filed by applicant no.1, Sanjay Kumar Singh, was dismissed while declining to interfere in the impugned order dated 10.3.2023 passed by the Board on the representation filed by the petitioner affirming the order dated 16.9.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar allowing the mutation in favour of the respondent no.5.
3. One of the contentions raised by Shri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants is that aforesaid orders of the Naib Tehsildar and the Board are without jurisdiction given the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19531. Learned counsel has referred to the judgments of this Court in the matter of Ram Bahadur vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.2; Jhagru & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti3, and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Mal vs. Ram Singh4 to buttress his argument regarding non-maintainability and lack of jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar to look into the mutation application filed under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act in view of the deemed continuance of the consolidation operations under sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act, 1953.
4. Though it is noted that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar was raised and considered in the judgment sought to be reviewed, however, what is important to note is that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no.5 had moved an application under Section 12 of the Act, 1953 in which it was held by the Consolidation Officer that the sale-deed, on the basis of which the application under Section 12 was moved, was not relevant. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by means of an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953, which was dismissed by an order dated 9.3.2016. It was during pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that the land was sold in favour of the respondent no.5 on 17.1.2011 and on the basis of which sale-deed, the respondent no.5 moved a mutation application before the Naib Tehsildar which was allowed by the aforesaid order dated 16.9.2019. The order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 9.3.2016 was challenged in a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which revision was stated to be pending.
5. Under the circumstances, the concerned respondent, who had moved the application under Section 12 of the Act, 1953, could only pass on the right he had with regard to the disputed land as stated before the Consolidation Officer and, therefore, the respondent no.5 being a subsequent transferree cannot claim anything beyond what was claimed by the concerned respondent in the application under Section 12. Section 12 of the Act, 1953 is not a summary proceeding but has all trapping of title proceedings and is akin to declaration. On the other hand, Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is always subject to a declaratory suit. Therefore, while considering the mutation proceeding under Section 12 of the Act, 1953, the consolidation authority would consider not just who would be liable to pay the land revenue but can also pass an order that would be akin to a declaration.
6. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar while ordering mutation in favour of the respondent no.5, appears to be correct given the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Section 52 of the Act, 1953.
7. The review application is, accordingly, allowed and the Writ-B No.1446 of 2023 is restored to its original number and shall be listed before the appropriate Court in due course.
Date 29.5.2024
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
