Mutation proceedings cannot be abated or kept in abeyance after the close of consolidation operations, and Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act alone could not have been invoked for mutation over land purchased after the close of consolidation operations.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Yadav, counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi.

2. A certiorari has also been sought for quashing the mutation proceedings initiated by the respondents 5 to 10 on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in their favour on 08.06.2011 by the respondent no. 4. Further a mandamus has been sought for keeping the proceedings of case no. 42/491 under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act in abeyance.

3. It appears that respondent no. 4 the recorded tenure holder executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents 5 to 10 after close of consolidation operations. The respondents 5 to 10 initiated proceedings for their mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed in their favour wherein the petitioner filed an application that since the dispute regarding title was pending between him and his brother, respondent no. 4 before the consolidation courts, the mutation proceedings were not liable to continue.

4. The trial court, namely, Tehsildar (Judicial) vide order dated 31.07.2012 abated the mutation case.

5. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal under Section 210 of the UP Land Revenue Act.

6. The SDO vide order dated 02.04.2014 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties and after affording them opportunity of adducing evidence.

7. The consequential revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2015. Hence this writ petition.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the dispute between him and his brother, respondent no. 4, the vendor of respondent nos. 5 to 10 is pending consideration before the consolidation courts, the mutation proceedings were not liable to continue and, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.05.2015 is liable to be set aside.

9. As already noted herein above, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the mutation case and an alternative prayer has also been made that the mutation case be kept in abeyance.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, I do not find any substance in the writ petition.

11. Admittedly the mutation case has been initiated by respondent after the close of the consolidation operations by means of a notification under Section 52 of the Act. In my considered opinion, such a mutation proceeding can neither be ordered to abate nor can be ordered to remain in abeyance.

12. The provision for abatement of proceedings is contained in Section 5 (2) (a) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is clear from bare reading of this section that once a notification has been issued under Section 4 (2) of the Act, bringing a unit under consolidation operations, every proceeding for correction of records pending before any court or authority shall be abated after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Consolidation operation which are initiated by means of a notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act are closed by means of a notification under Section 52 of the Act.

13. As already noticed above, the sale deed dated 08.06.2015 which is the basis of claim of the respondents 5 to 10 has been admittedly executed after the close of consolidation operations. The purchaser, therefore, could not have invoked Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which deals with matters relating to changes and transactions affecting rights from interest recorded in the revised records. This section deals also with transfers made during the currency of consolidation operations. It is therefore clear that Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act alone could not have in