Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3921
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Suresh Narain - Appellant
Versus
Ram Narain and 10 Others - Respondent
Writ-C No. 44834 of 2016
Decided On : 21-10-2016
For the Petitioner:- Gulrez Khan and Amit Swaroop Tiwari, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- C.S.C., Chandra Bhan Singh, Satya Man Singh, Advocates.
The validity of a sale deed remains unless set aside by a civil court, and parties can contest mutation cases with all available pleas in the trial court.
Headnote:
Land Revenue Act - Proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 34 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - [Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section 5(6) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act] - The court discussed the validity of a sale deed, the impact of ceiling proceedings on land transactions, and the binding nature of a sale deed between the vendor and vendee unless set aside by a civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land recorded in the name of Smt. Sudharia, which was subject to proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The petitioner, claiming to be the adopted son of Smt. Sudharia, contested the validity of a sale deed and subsequent mutation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed, though discarded in ceiling proceedings, remained valid and binding between the vendor and vendee unless set aside by a civil court. The court refused to interfere in the remand of the matter to the trial court for deciding mutation applications, allowing the petitioner to contest the mutation case with all available pleas.
Issues: Validity of sale deed, impact of ceiling proceedings on land transactions, remand of the matter to the trial court, refusal to interfere in summary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The sale deed remains valid and binding between the vendor and vendee unless set aside by a civil court. The petitioner can contest the mutation case with all available pleas in the trial court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to contest the mutation case with all available pleas in the trial court.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhan Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.3, 5 to 9 as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 16.01.2014, 07.03.2014, 30.10.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baberu, District Banda, respondent no.11 and the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner ( Administration), respondent no.10.
3. The order dated 25.09.2013, is an order passed on a restoration application, filed by the respondent and directs that the restoration application be put up with the file.
4. The order dated 16.01.2014 recalls an order dated 23.08.2013 dismissing a restoration application of the respondents, for default.
5. The order dated 07.03.2014 is an order, whereby the appeal filed by one Ketki had been allowed, the order of the Trial Court dated 11.12.2008 was set aside and the matter remanded back for a fresh decision on the merits, after hearing all necessary parties.
6. The order dated 30.10.2014, rejects a restoration application filed by the petitioner, for recall of the order dated 07.03.2014.
7. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, filed two revisions, challenging the orders dated 30.10.2014 and 16.1.2014 respectively. Both these revisions, have been dismissed on 17.08.2016. Hence, this writ petition.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute pertains to plot nos.1451, 253, 159 new no. 186M area 29 bigha, situated in village Marauli, Tehsil Baberu, District Banda, which was recorded in the name of Smt. Sudharia wife of Bhagirath. The petitioner is the adopted son of Smt. Sudharia.
9. On 28.09.1974, Smt. Sudharia executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no.1, Ram Narain. However, in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the Prescribed Authority, discarded the sale deed.
10. However, against the order declaring certain land as surplus in the hands of Smt. Sudharia, an appeal under Section 13 of the Act was filed. This appeal was allowed and the matter remanded vide order dated 13.03.1977 to determine the irrigated and un-irrigated land in the hands of the tenure holder.
11. It has been submitted that even in the appellate order, the sale deed in favour of Ram Narain was held to be a void transaction.
12. The consequential writ petition, filed by Smt. Sudharia being writ petition No.2562 of 1977 was dismissed on 17.12.1977 and even the High Court failed to accept the sale deed.
13. Upon remand, the Prescribed Puthority again held certain land to be surplus in the hands of tenure holder vide order dated 31.03.1986. The petitioner filed an appeal, under Section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed on 23.03.1988.
14. Against these orders, a writ petition No.9694 of 1988 filed by the petitioners is stated to be pending consideration as on date.
15. It is submitted that during the pendency of the Ceiling Proceedings, Ram Narain initially filed an objection, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking mutation on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.09.1974, executed in his favour by Smt. Sudharia. This objection was dismissed for default and the order had become final.
16. Concealing this fact, Ram Narain preferred another objection, under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and obtained mutation, vide order dated 20.01.1981.
17. When the petitioner came to know about the mutation order, he filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed on 15.01.2009 and the petitioner was ordered to be mutated over the land in question.
18. However, respondent no.1 filed a revision against the appellate order in favour of the petitioners, which was allowed on 23.06.2013. Even against this order, a writ petition is stated to be
