Allahabad High Court
Sameer Saxena And Another vs Commissioner Kanpur And 8 Others on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153857
Judgment Reserved on : 02.04.2025
Judgment Delivered on : 02.09.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35024 of 2021
Sameer Saxena And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commissioner Kanpur And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ram Swaroop (Singh), Shivakant Singh
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Ram Swaroop Singh and Sri Shivakant Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and perused the records. None has appeared on behalf of the private Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 despite service.
The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in Case No. 2132 of 2019 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as also the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar along with the amended order dated 21.08.2019 in Case No. 12108 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the names of the respondents were directed to be mutated over the land in dispute after striking off the names of the petitioners.
The lis between the parties is in respect of Plot No. 529-Kha Minjumla having an area of 1 Bigha 15 Biswa (0.359 hectare) and Plot No. 530-Ka, area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa (0.348 hectare) situate in village Baikunthpur, Tehsil Kanpur Sadar, Kanpur Nagar. The plots aforementioned were recorded in the names of Ram Kishore and Shiv Kishore, the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 herein as original tenure holder. The Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are stated to have executed a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2002 in favour of one Ravindra Pal son of Vijay Pal who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 03.08.2005. The petitioners on the strength of the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 got their names mutated over the plots. The petitioners thereafter are stated to have initiated proceedings under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act and vide order dated 10.09.2012 the Plots Nos. 529-Kha and 530-Ka Minjumla were declared abadi by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar) Kanpur Nagar. It is also the case of the petitioners that a part of Plot No. 530-Ka measuring 0.2280 hectares was acquired for the purposes of the construction of the Ganga Barrage and compensation in lieu of the land acquired was computed in favour of the Ravindra Pal the vendor and predecessor in interest of the petitioners.
It is further the case of the petitioners that the private Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 on the strength of a sale deed dated 20.12.1986 said to have been executed by the Respondent Nos. 8 & 9 sought restoration of the order dated 28.11.2006 whereby the names of the petitioners were mutated over the land in dispute. A case being Case No. 839/4 of 2005 was registered on the said restoration application. The Case No. 839/4 of 2005 was dismissed and the Restoration Application rejected vide order dated 05.09.2022, which order attained finality in the absence of any challenge to the same.
It is next contended that after 4 years on 18.04.2016 a highly belated application along with a delay condonation application was filed by the Respondent No. 3, Dr. Renu Pal through Power of Attorney, Pawan Kumar Pandey for recalling an order dated 17.02.2009 passed in Mutation Case No. 556/2008-09 whereby the application of the Respondent No. 3 for mutation had been rejected. The Naib Tehsildar, Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 11.07.2019 decided the mutation application of the Respondent No. 3 and after deleting the names of the petitioners over the Plot No. 529-Ka Minjumla area 0.3590 hectare and Plot No. 530 area 0.1200 hectare directed the name of the Respondent No. 3 and other to be recorded over the said plots on the strength of the sale deed dated 20.12.1986. Thereafter, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 3 sought re-clarification of the order dated 11.07.2019 which was allowed vide order dated 21.08.2019 and the Plot Nos. 529-Ka Minjumla and Plot No. 530 mentioned in the order dated 11.07.2019 was replaced by the Plot Nos. 529-Kha and 530-M. The petitioners challenged the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in Revision under Section 210 before the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur being Revision No. 02132 of 2019. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 26.07.2021 on grounds untenable in law proceeded to reject the revision which order has been impugned in the present writ petition.
Per contra, it is the case of the contesting private Respondent No. 3 that Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore both sons of Ganga Dayal (Respondent Nos. 8 & 9 herein) were the recorded tenure holders of the disputed plots. A sale deed dated 20.12.1986 was executed in favour of the answering Respondent No. 3 and others by the recorded tenure holders Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore and possession was also given. It is also the case of the Respondent No. 3 that the entire area of Plot No. 529 and Plot No. 530 situate at village Baikunthpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar was transferred in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and others and there is no question of any Plot No. 529-Ka and Plot No. 530-Kha. The sale deed dated 13.06.2002 in favour of Ravindra Pal Singh by the tenure holders Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore both sons of Ganga Dayal is of no consequence. Likewise, the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 executed by Ravindra Pal Singh in favour of the petitioners of Plot No. 529-Kha and 530-Ka is of no consequence as it is without authority of law. The order dated 10.09.2012 declaring the land in dispute as Abadi under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been set aside by order dated 20.02.2016 on the application of the Respondent No. 3. The orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar and the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur are just and proper and calls for no interference.
Learned Standing Counsel representing the State Respondents has also filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore both sons of Ganga Dayal (Respondent Nos. 8 & 9 herein) were the Bhumidhars with transferable rights Plot No. 529-Kha area 1-15-0 equivalent to 0.359 hectare and Plot No. 530-Ka Minjumla, area 1-14-0 equivalent to 0.358 hectares of the village concerned. The said plots were sold to the Respondent No.3 Prakash Chandra Goel and Smt. Arun Kumari Sharma for valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 20.12.1986. The names of the Vendees, however, was not mutated over the plots and the vendors taking advantage of the said fact transferred the plots vide sale deed 03.08.2005. The petitioners got their names mutated over the plots and subsequently applied for declaring the land as Abadi under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was allowed vide order dated 10.09.2012 but subsequently recalled vide order dated 20.12.2016. A mutation case being Mutation Case No. 556 of 2008-09 was filed by the Vendees of the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 but the same was dismissed in default on 18.04.2016. A restoration application was filed on 18.04.2016 which was allowed and ultimately the mutation application was allowed vide order dated 11.07.2019. In the said proceedings the Vendors had admitted that they had sold the land in dispute to the Respondent No. 3 and others vide sale deed dated 20.12.1986 and again sold the same to Ravindra Pal Singh vide sale deed dated 13.06.2002.
In the above backdrop, this Court has been called upon to decide the lis between the parties as also the validity of the impugned orders dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur as also the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar along with the amended order dated 21.08.2019.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
Admittedly, the answering/contesting respondents claim their rights over the plots in dispute (i.e. Plot No. 529-Kha Minjumla area 1 Bigha 15 Biswa, 530-Ka, area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa, situate at Village Baikunthpur, Tehsil Kanpur Sadar, Kanpur Nagar on the strength of sale deed dated 20.12.1986 while the petitioners claim their rights over the said plots on the strength of the sale deed dated 03.08.2005. A bare perusal of the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 which has been brought on record by the writ petitioners as Annexure No. 7 reveals that the same has been executed in respect of Plot No. 529, area 1 Bigha 15 Biswa and Plot No. 530, area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa by Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore both sons of Ganga Dayal. A perusal of the CH Form 45 pertaining to the village concerned brought on record as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition reveals that Plot No. 529, area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa is recorded in the name of Kallu Singh S/o Dullar Singh since prior to 1377 Fasli while Plot No. 529 Kha, area 1 Bigha 15 Biswa and Plot No. 530-Ka, area 1 Bigha 14 biswa are recorded in the name of Ganga Dayal S/o Shiv Prasad. The CH Form-41 also on record reveals that the total area of Plot No. 529 is 3 Bigha 4 Biswa while that of Plot No. 530-Ka is 5 Bigha. The Khatauni extract of Khata No. 272 pertaining to 1377-F and 1408-F which is also on record reveals that the Plot No. 530-M area 0.246 hectares in 1408-F is recorded in the name of Smt. Mohini Jatav W/o O.vP. Jatav, while the Plot No. 529 area 0.297 hectares in 1377-F is recorded in the name of Mohit Sigh under the Guardianship of Kamla Devi.
The perusal of the above compels the Court to come to the conclusion that Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore both sons of Ganga Dayal the Respondent Nos. 8 & 9 herein, were not competent to execute the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 in favour of the Respondent No. 3, Dr. Renu Pal, Mulkraj Taneja, Prakash Chandra Geol and Smt. Arun Kumari. The vendors of the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 have executed the sale deed in favour of the vendees of the plots which wee recorded in the names of other persons. On the other hand, Shiv Kishore and Ram Kishore, Respondent Nos. 8 & 9 herein, successor in interest of Ganga Dayal have executed the sale deed of the Plot Nos. 529-Kha and 530-Ka in favour of the petitioners herein. The Court finds that the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 executed in favour of the petitioners is in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the revenue authorities otherwise under the impugned orders suffers from patent error. The fact that the contesting respondents did not get their names mutated over the plots purchased under the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 also speaks volumes about their claim. The revenue authorities have recorded findings against the petitioners harbouring under an erroneous assumption that the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 was executed prior in time and as such would have precedence over the sale deed executed in favour of Ravindra Pal and subsequently in favour of the petitioners is based on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence available on record and cannot be sustained.
The Court further finds that the Naib Tehsildar under the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 and subsequent rectification order dated 21.08.2019 committed manifest error of law ignoring the settled legal position that rectification in the mutation proceedings cannot be inconsistent to the recitals of the documents on the basis of which the mutation entries are being mutated in the relevant records. In the case at hand the sale deed dated 20.12.1986 on the strength of which the impugned orders have been passed is admittedly regarding Plot No. 529 and 530 and not 529-Kha and 530-Ka and such view of the matter no rectification could have been ordered.
In the conspectus of the above, the impugned orders dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar along with the amended order dated 21.08.2019 in Case No. 12108 of 2019 directing the mutation of the names of the Respondents after striking off the name of the petitioners as also the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in Case No. 2132 of 2019 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code are set aside. The mutation entry in favour of the writ petitioners over the Plots Nos. 529-Kha and 530-Ka, area 1 Bigha 15 Biswa and 1 Bigha 14 Biswa respectively, situate in Village Baikunthpur, Tehsil Kanpur Sadar, Kanpur Nagar is restored. The writ petition is allowed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
September 2, 2025
pks
