Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashok Bhushan, J.
SRI LAL BACHAN - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE, UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 33610 Of 2001
Decided On : 10/31/2001
MUTATION PROCEEDINGS - U.P. LAND REVENUE ACT, 1901, SECTION 34 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash several orders related to mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, arising from a dispute over succession and a sale deed. The petitioner's name was mutated after the death of his mother, but the respondent No. 6 claimed mutation based on an alleged sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition challenging the mutation orders was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, as mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine title. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the orders in mutation proceedings do not prevent the petitioner from seeking adjudication of title in a regular suit.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226. 2. Scope of interference by the court in mutation proceedings. 3. Entitlement of the petitioner for relief through the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while writ petitions challenging mutation orders are not non-maintainable, they are generally not entertained due to the availability of the remedy of adjudicating title in a regular suit. The court may entertain such writ petitions in exceptional cases, such as when an authority without jurisdiction passes an order or interferes with the proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the observation that the orders in mutation proceedings do not preclude the petitioner from seeking adjudication of title in a competent court.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20. 6. 2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26. 2. 2001. and the order dated 26. 2. 2001 passed by the Board of revenue allowing the reference and setting aside the order dated 10. 6. 1997 of the sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 12. 8. 1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur, making reference to the Board of revenue for setting aside the order dated 10. 6. 1997 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansi. Orders dated 28. 11. 1996 and 24. 10. 1994 passed by the Naib Tahsildar. Bans, have also been prayed to be quashed. The present writ petition has arisen out of the mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ).
( 3 ) THE facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that after the death of Smt. Chandra Dei, the mother of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mutated on the basis of succession in the revenue record on 18. 7. 1994. The respondent No. 6 moved an application before the Naib tahsildar for mutating his name on the basis of alleged sale deed executed by the petitioners mother. By order dated 24. 10. 1994 the Naib Tahsildar mutated the name of respondent No. 6 in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged sale-deed. The petitioner, when came to know about the aforesaid order dated 24. 10. 1994, moved a restoration/recall application for recalling of the order dated 24. 10. 1994. The restoration application was rejected by the Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 28. 11. 1996. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by order dated 10. 6. 1997 of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent No. 6 filed a revision before the Additional commissioner against the order dated 10. 6. 1997. The Additional Commissioner made reference to the Board of Revenue vide his referring order dated 12. 8. 1997 recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 10. 6. 1997 be set aside. The petitioner has also made reference to the Suit No. 469 of 1996 which is claimed to have been filed by him against the respondent for permanent injunction praying that defendant be restrained from interfering in his possession. The interim injunction is claimed to have been granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 3. 2. 1997 against which a miscellaneous appeal was filed which was dismissed on 16. 7. 2001. The petitioner appeared and filed objection before the Board of Revenue after the reference was made by the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue. The Board of revenue vide its order dated 26. 2. 2001 accepted the recommendation of the Additional commissioner and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 10. 6. 1997. The petitioner moved recall/restoration application dated 26. 2. 2001 to recall the order dated 26. 2. 2001 which has been rejected by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20. 6. 2001. The petitioner has come up in the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar. Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The consequence of the orders passed by the revenue authorities in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is that the name of the respondent No. 6 has been directed to be mutated under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue act on the land. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the writ petition arising out of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is not maintainable.
( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition is fully maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the effect of the mutation order passed in favour of the respon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
