Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2240/2010 on 23 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2240 of 2010
BETWEEN:
Ravi Gupta. ..........Petitioner
(There is no representation for the petitioner)
AND:
Shashank Gupta and another. ....Respondents
(By Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 1)
JUDGMENT
The matter was listed on 22.03.2021.
Since there was no representation for the petitioner,
therefore, the case was directed to be listed today.
Today also, there is no representation for the
petitioner; although, name of petitioner's counsel is
mentioned in the cause list.
2. This Writ Petition, under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, has been filed challenging the
order dated 12.11.2010 passed by Additional Chief
Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand in mutation
proceedings, whereby the order passed by Additional
Commissioner, allowing the impleadment application
of the petitioner, was set aside, by holding that a
revisional Court cannot add a stranger to the
proceedings as party respondent.
3. It transpires that Mr. Shashank Gupta
(respondent no. 1) filed an application, seeking
mutation of his name in revenue records, in place of
Ms. Kanti Bai. The said mutation application was
allowed by Peshkar, Ramnagar vide order dated
18.08.2003. Mr. Har Prasad Sah (respondent no. 2)
challenged the mutation order dated 18.08.2003 by
filing an Appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by
Collector, Nainital on 29.07.2004, by holding that
objection raised by respondent no. 2 is not tenable.
Respondent no. 2, thereafter, filed a Revision Petition
before Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital,
challenging the order dated 29.07.2004 passed by
Collector, Nainital. In the said Revision Petition,
petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule
10 C.P.C., seeking his impleadment. The Revisional
Court (Additional Commissioner) allowed the
impleadment application filed by the petitioner vide
order dated 31.12.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the
order dated 31.12.2008, respondent no. 1 filed
Revision Petition before Additional Chief Revenue
Commissioner, Uttarakhand, which was allowed on
12.11.2010, by holding that new party cannot be
impleaded at revisional stage. Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for respondent no. 1
and perused the record. After going through the
order dated 12.11.2010 passed by Additional Chief
Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, impugned in
this writ petition, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere. The view taken by learned Additional
Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand that in
mutation proceedings, impleadment cannot be
ordered at revisional stage, does not suffer from any
infirmity.
5. It is settled position in law that mutation
proceedings are summary in nature and disputed
questions of title cannot be adjudicated in these
proceedings. If petitioner is claiming title over the
subject land, he is always at liberty to file a title suit,
subject to law of limitation.
6. Even otherwise also, Appendix I to U.P.
Revenue Court Manual, as applicable in State of
Uttarakhand, which enunciates the provisions of
C.P.C., which are made applicable to proceedings
under U.P. Land Revenue Act, does not mention Order
1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Thus, it can be safely inferred that
provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. are not
attracted to the proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue
Act.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
