Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Prakash Padia, J.
Mahipal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue And Others - Respondents
WRIT -B No. -70097 of 2011
Decided On : 13-05-2020
U.P. Land Revenue Act – Section 34 – U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Sections 157, 161, 167 – Mutation – Petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with prayers to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari by quashing passed by Collector Finance and Revenue, in Case under Section 157-AA order passed by Additional Commissioner Meerut in Revision and order signed passed by Member Board of Revenue Circuit Court in Revision and to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding respondent No.3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in mutation proceeding of mutation case in regard to sale-deed in accordance with law – Held, Court hold that Commissioner, should have condoned delay as he was not justified in rejecting the restoration application as barred by time – Petitioner has already availed a statutory remedy by filing a revision against order passed by Additional Collector – In this view of matter, without interfering in order passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), a mandamus is issued to revisional authorities to decide revision on merits – Court is of view that orders passed by Additional Commissioner and order passed by Member Board of Revenue Circuit Court are liable to be set aside and they are hereby set aside – Writ Petition Partly Allowed (Paras 30, 31, 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner belongs to the caste of Jatav, which is a scheduled caste. One Tara Chand son of Jaggan Singh also belongs to caste of Jatav. One Jaichand son of Ram Dhan was tenure holder of the Arazi Khata No.568 Khasra No.1136 area 2 bigha situated in village Bhanaida Pargana Loni Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, executed a sale deed dated 1.1.2002 in favour of the Tara Chand. The aforesaid sale deed was duly registered in favour of Tara Chand – Tara Chand applied for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act on the basis of sale deed in question. The Revenue Officers passed mutation order in favour of Tara Chand and the name of Tara Chand was duly recorded in the revenue records as well as in the Khatauni as bhumidar with transferable rights. The petitioner purchased the aforesaid arazi from Tara Chand by way of registered sale deed dated 5.3.2009 on consideration of Rs.8,75,000/-. The aforesaid sale deed was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghaziabad. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application for mutation of the land in question in his name.
Findings of the court:
Court hold that Commissioner, should have condoned delay as he was not justified in rejecting the restoration application as barred by time – Petitioner has already availed a statutory remedy by filing a revision against order passed by Additional Collector – In this view of matter, without interfering in order passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), a mandamus is issued to revisional authorities to decide revision on merits – Court is of view that orders passed by Additional Commissioner and order passed by Member Board of Revenue Circuit Court are liable to be set aside and they are hereby set aside.
Result: Petition Partly Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S.S. Shukla and Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Praveen Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- State.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in mutation proceeding of mutation case No.421 of 2008-09 Mahipal Singh Versus Tara Chand in regard to sale-deed dated 5.3.2009 in accordance with law.”
3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner belongs to the caste of Jatav, which is a scheduled caste. One Tara Chand son of Jaggan Singh also belongs to caste of Jatav. One Jaichand son of Ram Dhan was tenure holder of the Arazi Khata No.568 Khasra No.1136 area 2 bigha situated in village Bhanaida Pargana Loni Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, executed a sale deed dated 1.1.2002 in favour of the Tara Chand. The aforesaid sale deed was duly registered in favour of Tara Chand.
4. Tara Chand applied for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act on the basis of sale deed in question. The Revenue Officers passed mutation order in favour of Tara Chand and the name of Tara Chand was duly recorded in the revenue records as well as in the Khatauni as bhumidar with transferable rights. The petitioner purchased the aforesaid arazi from Tara Chand by way of registered sale deed dated 5.3.2009 on consideration of Rs.8,75,000/-. The aforesaid sale deed was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghaziabad. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application for mutation of the land in question in his name. On the said application report was submitted by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad, on 09.06.2009 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. On the basis of the said report the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad, submitted a report on 15.6.2009 before the Collector to initiate proceedings as provided under Section 161/167 of the The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). Subsequent to the aforesaid a notice was issued to the petitioner stating therein that the vendor belongs to schedule caste but the land in question was obtained by way of patta and he has not taken permission from the Collector prior to execution of the sale deed as per the provisions contained in Section 157-AA of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner in response to the aforesaid show cause notice. It is stated in the reply that there was no need to get the permission from the Collector prior to execution of the sale deed thus there is no violation of the provisions of Section 157AA of the provisions and none of the provisions contained in the act were violated. Ultimately an order dated 21.12.2009 was passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad against the petitioner.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order petitioner preferred a revision being Revision No.39/10 in the court of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The aforesaid revision was dismissed in default by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide its order dated 26.5.2010. An application was filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 26.5.2010 on 29.3.2011. The aforesaid recall application was rej
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
