Allahabad High Court
Naveen And Another vs State Of Up And 7 Others on 13 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21049
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1709 of 2024
Petitioner :- Naveen And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Lalji Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 is not present.
2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 initiated at the instance of respondent no. 6 was decided vide order dated 15.01.2016 by Nayab Tehsildar directing to record the name of Respondent no. 6-Pradeep Kumar on the basis of registered sale deed dated 13.07.2015 after expunging the name of vendor Omkar Singh. Against the order dated 15.01.2016 the appeal no. 488 of 2016 was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The aforementioned appeal was allowed in part setting aside the order dated 15.01.2016 and remitted the matter back before the Nayab Tehsildar to decide the proceedings afresh. Against the order dated 30.12.2019 a revision was filed by respondent no. 6 before Commissioner which was registered as Case No. 00053 of 2020. The aforementioned revision was heard by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut Division, Meerut and vide order dated 10.04.2023 the revision was allowed setting aside the order dated 30.12.2019 and maintained the order of Nayab Tehsildar dated 15.01.2016. Against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Case No. REV/175/2023. The aforementioned revision was heard by Board of Revenue and vide order dated 15.01.2024 the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"A. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the Member Judicial of Hon'ble Board of Revenue Circuit Court, Meerut i.e, Respondent No. 2 in Case No. REV/175/2023/Gautam Buddha Nagar, Computerized Case No. ME2023112700175, Naveen & Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Others, Under Section 210 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code-2006 and the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration First, Meerut Division Meerut i.e. Respondent No. 3 in Case No. 00053/2020, Pradeep Kumar Vs. Omkar Singh & Others, Computerized Case No. C2020110000000, Underr Section 210 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006; Otherwise petitioners shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
B. A suitable writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus to confirm the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by UP Ziladhikari Jewar, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Case No. 488/2016, Computerized Case No. T201611277103488 Onkar Vs. Pradeep Kumar, Under Section 207 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code-2006 allowing the appeal of petitioners partially and rightly remanded the case before Trial Court i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Rabupura Gautam Buddha Nagar by cancelling his order dated 15.01.2016 in Case No. 534/031625/2015 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Onkar Singh, Under Section 34 of L.R. Act of Village Karauli; for afresh decision on merit in accordance with law after hearing both parties for the sake of justice and fair play.
C. A suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."
3. This Court entertained the matter on 03.05.2024 and issued notice to the respondent nos. 6 and 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Nayab Tehsildar has passed the order for mutation in favour of respondent no. 6 in arbitrary manner accordingly, appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed and matter was remanded back before the Nayab Tehsildar to decide the mutation proceeding afresh. He next submitted that against the remand order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal, the revision has been illegally entertained and allowed without considering the case of the petitioners as set up in revision. He submitted that petitioners have filed a Civil Suit No. 81 of 2015 for cancellation of sale deed in question, which has been dismissed by Trial Court, vide order dated 08.08.2022, but Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2023 filed by the petitioners is pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Gautam Budha Nagar. He further submitted that order impugned passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue should be set aside and the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer should be maintained, so that mutation proceeding may be decided in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceeding is not maintainable in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in Case of Smt. Kalawati vs. Board of Revenue and Others, reported in (2022) 155 RD 169. They further submitted that Civil Suit for cancellation of sale-deed filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by Trial Court, as such no interference is required against the impugned orders. They next submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the mutation proceeding was decided in favour of the respondent no. 6 on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 13.07.2015 executed in favour of the respondent no. 6 and the appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed in part remitting the matter back before the Nayab Tehsildar to decide the mutation proceeding afresh. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by respondent no. 6 has been allowed setting aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer and order of Nayab Tehsildar has been maintained. There is no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue has been dismissed. There is also no dispute about the fact that Civil Suit 81 of 2015 filed by the petitioners for cancellation of sale deed in question has been dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2022, but Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2023 is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Gautam Buddha Nagar.
8. Considering the facts that a Civil Suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by Trial Court, there is no illegality in the order passed by Nayab Tehsildar for recording the name of respondent no. 6 on the basis of sale-deed in question.
9. It is also material to mention that Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2023 filed by the petitioners is pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar, as such the impugned order dated 15.01.2016 passed by Nayab Tehsildar for recording the name of respondent no. 6 shall be subject to the adjudication of the dispute by Civil Court in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2023.
10. No interference is required against the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by Board of Revenue and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of with observation that impugned order dated 15.01.2016 passed by Nayab Tehsildar in the mutation proceeding shall be subject to the adjudication of dispute by Civil Court in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2023.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
Neetu
