Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(All) 361

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Jairam and Another -Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner (ADMN.), Faizabad Division and Others -Respondent
Misc. Single Case No. 892 of 2014
Decided On : 13-02-2014

Advocates:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Brijraj Singh and Shobhit Nigam.
Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C.

Mutation proceedings cannot be stayed during the pendency of another mutation case at the revisional stage. The order of status quo does not stay the proceedings of a subsequent mutation case.

Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Section 34 - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which deals with proceedings related to land revenue. The court held that the person recorded over the land in dispute is liable to pay land revenue, but the mutation entry does not confer title upon the person recorded.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to plot No. 423,431, 463, 481, 482,485, 614K, 639, 640, 644 Ka, 670 kha, 920 situated in Village Vishambharpur, Pargana Surhurpur, Tahsil Jalalpur district Ambedkar. The petitioners claim on the basis of a registered will in their favour. An order was passed in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Tehsildar, but was set aside and remanded. The Tahsildar maintained the earlier entry in favour of the three brothers. A sale deed was executed in violation of the order of status quo. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking stay of the mutation proceedings. The revision against the order refusing to stay the proceedings was dismissed. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order and remand of the matter for decision afresh.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that mutation proceedings cannot be stayed awaiting the decision of regular title proceedings. The mutation proceedings must not be stayed during the pendency of another mutation case at the revisional stage. The court also held that the order of status quo does not stay the proceedings of a subsequent mutation case.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutation proceedings cannot be stayed during the pendency of another mutation case at the revisional stage. The order of status quo does not stay the proceedings of a subsequent mutation case.
Result: The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The mutation proceedings cannot be stayed during pendency of another mutation case at the revisional stage; status quo does not stay subsequent mutation proceedings [25000741850010][25000741850012] - Mutation entry does not confer title; the person recorded is liable to pay land revenue [25000741850008] - Proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act have fiscal connotations and are to be decided irrespective of regular title proceedings [25000741850008] - Order of status quo is separate from mutation proceedings and does not prevent mutation or sale deeds executed in violation of status quo [25000741850011][25000741850012] - The writ petition challenging the stay of mutation proceedings lacks merit and is dismissed [25000741850013] - Revision and impugned orders need not be interfered with where mutation authority has acted within its scope [25000741850008]

What is the effect of mutation proceedings on stay of other mutation or title proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act?

What is the status and binding effect of a status quo order on mutation proceedings and subsequent transactions?

What are the rights of the recorded tenure holder to pay land revenue versus conferment of title through mutation entries?

Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act. The dispute relates to plot No. 423,431, 463, 481, 482,485, 614K, 639, 640, 644 Ka, 670 kha, 920 situated in Village Vishambharpur, Pargana Surhurpur, Tahsil Jalalpur district Ambedkar.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father Jhinnu was recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioners claim on the basis of a registered will in their favour. All three sons of Jhinnu were recorded on the basis of PA-11 contrary to the Will set up by the petitioner wherein as per their case, the opposite party no.6 was not entitled to any share. An order was passed on 29.8.1988 in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Tehsildar, the PA-11 entry was expunged and objection of opposite party no.6 was rejected.

3. Against this order dated 29.8.88 an appeal was filed by the respondent no.6 wherein the order impugned was set aside and the matter was remanded. In pursuance of the order of remand the Tahsildar passed an order on 15.4.2002 maintaining the earlier entry in favour of the three brothers. This order was affirmed in appeal against which a writ petition was preferred before this Court. This writ petition was ultimately dismissed relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy of revision. This revision is said to be pending disposal before the Commissioner.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court an order of status quo was operating and this order of status quo continued to operate during the pendency of the revision before the Commissioner. In violation of this, order of status quo, the respondent no.6, Ram Dular, is alleged to have executed a sale deed in favour of the opposite party nos.3 to 5 who applied for mutation on the basis of the said sale deed giving rise to Case No.1490. In this mutation, case No. 1490 an application for stay of the proceedings was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the order dated 18.12.2013. Against the order dated 18.12.2013 the petitioner preferred revision No.1015 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad which has been dismissed by the impugned. Hence this writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri B.R.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and have perused the record.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the dispute as to who was entitled to be recorded over the land in dispute had not attained finality and the same is subjudice even today it was not proper for the respondent to have executed a sale deed of the same and since mutation has now been claimed on the basis of the said sale deed these mutation proceedings should be stayed till such time the initial dispute is decided. He states that the revision against the order refusing to stay the proceedings of the mutation case No. 1490 has been dismissed as being directed against an interlocutory order. The court below has not assigned any further reason for not adjudicating the issue raised on its merits.

7. On the strength of these submissions learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the impugned order. He further states that in the circumstances of the case, the matter should be remanded to the Additional Commissioner for decision afresh.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the two proceedings are entirely separate. The registered sale deed has been executed by the recorded tenure holder and therefore mutation on the basis of such registered sale deed cannot be stalled during the pendency of any other proceedings. He has relied upon the following judgments (i) 2008(105) RD 698, Smt. Saroj Singh and another Vs. Board of Revenue Lucknow and (ii) 2006(24) LCD 1478 Mohit Bhargav versus Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others.

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis