Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(All) 2993

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
Harihar Prasad Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- H.P. Srivastava, In Person, A.P. Paul, B.B. Paul
For the Respondent:- C.S.C., Diwakar Singh, Ghan Shyam Pandey

Judgement Key Points

How to assess the validity of mutation orders under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act when there is pendency of a suit for cancellation of the sale deed?

What is the role of possession as the primary basis for mutation in Section 34 proceedings and how does it interact with pending litigation?

What are the consequences of maintaining status-quo and restraining third-party interests pending final decision in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed?

JUDGMENT

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava, the petitioner who has appeared in person and Sri B.B. Paul for the caveator, respondent no.6.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and seeks quashing of the orders passed by the Tehsildar Koraon, Allahabad, whereby the respondent no.6 was ordered to be mutated over the land in question and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Allahabad and Additional Commissioner (First), Allahabad Division, Allahabad affirming the order passed by the Tehsildar in appeal and revision respectively.

3. The respondent filed an application seeking mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1993 executed by the petitioner in her favour regarding the northern portion of plot no.63-B, area 2.434 Hectare situated in village Bhausara Jagir, Tappa Manda, Pargana Kairagar, Tehsil Koraon, District Allahabad.

4. The mutation case was contested by the petitioner alleging therein that the sale deed was forged and the same has been got registered by setting up an imposter. This imposter was set up by the husband of the respondent no.6, who is an employe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(All) 2993

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRAHarihar Prasad Srivastava – AppellantVersusState of U. P. – Respondent

How to assess the validity of mutation orders under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act when there is pendency of a suit for cancellation of the sale deed?

What is the role of possession as the primary basis for mutation in Section 34 proceedings and how does it interact with pending litigation?

What are the consequences of maintaining status-quo and restraining third-party interests pending final decision in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed?

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
Harihar Prasad Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent