Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.
Sangeeta - Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Lko Division & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition 7468(M/S) of 2014
Decided On : 22-12-2014
Will - Mutation of Name - U.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171 - Section 34 - Section 33/39 - Section 219 - Section 40(3) - Section 34 - Section 33/39 - Section 171
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the order dismissing the revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by Smt. Sangeeta Kumari, who claimed mutation on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Chhotey Lal. The mutation order was recalled, and objections were raised regarding the authenticity of the Will. Despite opportunities, no evidence was led to prove the Will, and the mutation was directed based on Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will was not proved by the petitioner, and the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of the Will, the non-examination of witnesses, and the jurisdiction of the court to interfere in mutation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and generally not amenable to interference by higher courts. It also highlighted the exceptions when interference may be allowed, such as when the order is without jurisdiction or based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not maintainable and devoid of merits.
Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.: -
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissing the revision no. 627/2009-10 under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by Smt. Sangeeta Kumari.
2. I have heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3 .It appears that Smt. Sangeeta claimed mutation on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Chhotey Lal which mutation order was passed on 28.02.2007. However, Smt. Savitri moved an application for recalling the order dated 28.02.2007 which was allowed on 30.03.2007 and order dated 28.02.2007 was recalled.
4. On 19.02.2009. Smt. Savitri filed objection that Will filed by Smt. Sangeeta was forged Will. Chhotey Lal was government servant who always signed while Will contains his thumb impression.
5. Despite opportunity, no evidence was led by Smt. Sangeeta to prove the Will while from objector side, Mahngu Prasad and Ram Narain were examined.
6. Since Will was not proved by petitioner, Naib Tehsildar directed the mutation of the name of daughters of deceased Chhotey Lal taking help of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act vide order dated 31.03.2010.
7. Order of Naib Tehsildar passed on 31.03.2010 was challenged by way of revision before Additional Commissioner who confirmed the order holding that Will was not proved.
8. Submission of Sri Mishra is that on 15.02.2010, Naib Tehsildar had closed the opportunity of evidence which order was sought to be recalled by means of application dated 26.03.2010 but instead of passing any order on the said recall application, Naib Tehsildar has decided the matter on merits. Revisional court has also not considered this ground.
9. I find from the memo of revision that in none of the grounds namely 1 to 8, non-consideration of the recall application has been mentioned. In ground no. 7, only thing said is that principle of natural justice has been violated.
10. Learned Additional Commissioner has found that non-examination of witnesses to prove the will, allegedly executed in favour of petitioner justifies the order passed by Naib Tehsildar.
11. This is no ground that since general dates were fixed, witnesses were fed up and chose not to appear.
12. Fact remains that witnesses have not proved the will as such, there is no error in the orders passed by Naib Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner, Lucknow.
13. Moreover, the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
14. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in [ 2006 (24) LCD 203 ] Smt. Durgawati Vs. Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others. In para 7 of the judgment only exception mentioned is that there is no dispute of natural heirship.
15. Relevant part of para 7 of the judgment is being reproduced below:
"So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that in mutation matters there should be no interference by higher court it is to say that this principle is not of universal application. No doubt in mutation proceedings the rights of the parties are not decided. The mutation takes place only for limited purposes to fix the liability of the person to pay the land revenue. It is also true that generally higher courts do not interfere with the mutation order. But there is no absolute bar to interfere with the mutation order in appropriate cases particularly when there is no dispute of natural heirship."
16. Next judgment cited by Sri Mishra is reported in [2008(105) RD 698] Smt. Saroj Singh and another Vs. Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others. This was a matter arising out of restoration application. Consequently, in these circumstances, this Court held in para 14 that there has been no adjudication on merit. Relevant para 14 of the judgment is being reproduced below:
"14. The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 that writ petition against the proceedings under
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
