Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3964
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B. Amit Sthalekar, J.
Raghunath Saran - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 6 Others - Respondent
Writ C. No. 59148 of 2016
Decided On : 16-12-2016
For the Petitioner:- Saral Singh
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings and cannot decide the right and title of the parties. A writ petition on disputed questions of fact is not maintainable.
Headnote:
Mutation Proceedings - U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 34, Section 35 - The court discussed the validity of mutation proceedings initiated by Nanhi Devi and the petitioner's claim of a valid sale deed executed by Kaikayee. The court emphasized that mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and cannot decide the right and title of the parties. It cited the case of Jaipal Vs Board of Revenue and Lal Bachan Vs Board of Revenue to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of orders related to mutation proceedings for a property. The property belonged to Mahendra Pal, whose wife Kaikayee divorced him and married another person. The petitioner claimed to have a valid sale deed from Kaikayee, while Nanhi Devi initiated mutation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings and cannot decide the right and title of the parties. It stated that the petitioner should obtain a declaration in his favor from the appropriate court if the sale deed is valid. The court cited relevant case law to support its decision.
Issues: Validity of mutation proceedings, petitioner's claim of a valid sale deed, maintainability of the writ petition on disputed questions of fact
Ratio Decidendi: Mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and cannot decide the right and title of the parties. A writ petition on disputed questions of fact is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
B. Amit Sthalekar, J.
Heard Sri Saral Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanshyam Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4.
2. In view of the nature of the order sought to be passed, it is not necessary to issue any notice to the respondents no.5,6 and 7.
3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the orders dated 18.11.2016, 13.6.2014 and 15.01.2014. The property in dispute belongs to one Mahendra Pal. His wife Kaikayee divorced him and married another person. Mahendra Pal has died. Upon his death an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed by Nanhi Devi, mother of Mahendra Pal for mutation of names and the application was allowed on 14.12.2011. Kaikayee is stated to have sold the property to the petitioner through a sale deed dated 22.03.2010 and on the basis of the sale deed the petitioner is stated to have initiated mutation proceedings which was allowed by order dated 11.3.2011. The respondent no.5-Nanhi Devi challenged the order in appeal before the SDM which was dismissed by the order dated 18.11.2011 which was not challenged by her and therefore, it is stated that the order dated 11.3.2011 has become final. Thereafter in 2014, Nanhi Devi initiated mutation proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner moved transfer applications dated 4.1.2014 and on 6.1.2014 seeking transfer of the proceedings as well as stay of the same. In the meantime, an order was passed on 15.1.2014, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, allowing the mutation application of Nanhi Devi. In this order, there is a clear finding recorded that Kaikayee had married one Suraj Pal in 2008 and was living with Suraj Pal, therefore she could not have sold the property of Mahendra Pal to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal which has also been dismissed by order dated 13.6.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision which has also been dismissed by the order dated 18.11.2016. According to the petitioner, he has a valid sale deed in his favour executed by Kaikayee and the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.5 were fraudulent proceedings in order to grab the property.
4. Be that as it may, the proceedings under section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act are merely summary proceedings in which right and title of the parties cannot be decided.
5. If the claim of the petitioner is that the sale deed executed by Kaikayee in his favour is valid, it is open for him to obtain a declaration in his favour from the appropriate court. A writ petition on disputed questions of fact is not maintainable.
6. The law in this regard has been already settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipal Vs Board of Revenue and ors. reported in AIR 1957 ALL 205, which is reproduced below: -
"1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of the Board of Revenue dated the 17-18th July, 1956.
2. The facts are these. On the 3rd of January 1955 the second respondent made an application under Sec. 34 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act to the Tahsildar of Koil, in the District of Aligarh, that her name be entered in the annual register maintained under that Act as being in possession of a particular holding as the successor of one Smt. Dewalia deceased.
3. The application was opposed by the petitioner who claimed to be the true owner, but an order was made by the Tahsildar directing that mutation of names be effected as asked for by the second respondent. That order was however set aside by the Commissioner on appeal by the petitioner. The second respondent then filed an application in revision before the Board of Revenue; and the Board by the order which is now being challenged allowed the application, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Tahsildar.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue in passing this order exceeded its juri
