The specific provisions of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the absence of necessary parties in a writ petition can influence the court's decision on mutation over land.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Kanpur.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the proceedings under Section 122-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were initiated against the father of the petitioners for his eviction from the plot no. 109-ka, area 3.5640 hectares, recorded as usar and pasture land (Charagah).

3. It is submitted that these proceedings were dropped on the ground that the father of the petitioners' belonged to the Scheduled Caste and was in possession from prior to 30.06.1985. This order is stated to have been passed on 18.08.1994.

4. The father of the petitioner is stated to have filed a suit in the year 2000 regarding the land in question. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, in revision, the plaintiff was ordered to be recorded as bhumidhari with transferable rights over the land in question. This order was passed on 17.08.2000.

5. It is submitted that this order was never implemented in the revenue records. Father of the petitioner is stated to have died on 09.12.2009. On his death, the petitioners sought mutation but were informed that the name of their father has been expunged from the land in question.

6. The petitioners are stated to have filed an application on 13.08.2012 for being recorded over the land in question. The application appears to have been dismissed on 30.06.2015 in the absence of the petitioners. They filed a restoration application along with an order of the writ court which contained a direction that their application be disposed of in accordance with law.

7. These recall applications have been dismissed by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 25.02.2016.

8. The main contention is that since an order had been passed in favour of the father of the petitioners, upon his death, the petitioners are liable to be mutated over the land in question, being his heirs and legal representatives.

9. The recall application and the prayer of the petitioners for mutation over the land in question has been dismissed on the finding that the land was recorded in the revenue records as pasture land, covered by provision of Section 132 of the Act, where in no rights can accrue in favour of any person.

10. It has come on record that the land in question, as on date, vests in the Kanpur Development Authority. It would be relevant to note that the benefit of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the Act, which is the basis of the claim of the petitioners, as was the basis of the claim of their father, is available only against the Gaon Sabha. This benefit cannot be extended to a person as against a Development Authority.

11. The writ petition is silent as to the date on which the land vested in the Kanpur Development Authority. It is further relevant to note that neither the Gaon Sabha nor the Kanpur Development Authority have been impleaded as parties in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore not only defective in the absence of the necessary parties, it is also not clear as to when the property vested in the Kanpur Development Authority. It is however to be noted that even if, on the date the revisional order was passed, in favour of the petitioners' father, the property vested in the Gaon Sabha, no rights could have been granted therein since the land was covered by provision of Section 132 of the Act.

12. The findings in this regard returned in the impugned order are perfectly justified and call for no interference.

13. Even otherwise, in the absence of necessary facts as to the date on which the land came under the management of the Kanpur Development, as also in the absence of the necessary parties, namely, the Gaon Sabha and the Kanpur Development Authority, the petitioners have not been able to mak