Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Smt. Hadisul Nisha – Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and Others – Respondents
Misc. Single No. 5147 of 2015
Decided On : 25-06-2021
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Sections 171 and 172 - U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 219 - Succession – Quash of order - Rejecting petitioners’ restoration/recall application as also for quashing of the order - petitioner that she is widow of Late Kamaal Ahmad son of Nazir Khan, recorded tenure holder of several plots of land situated in village - Late Nazir Khan had two sons, Late Kamaal Ahmad and one Ansar Ahmad, who has been arrayed as opposite party no. 3 husband of petitioner died in June 1999 and petitioner’s name was recorded under PA 11 by Revenue Inspector on basis of succession. Opposite party No. 3being the real brother of Kamaal Ahmad initially filed an application for mutation on basis of forged Will deed which was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application was moved for recall of the order which was subsequently not pressed by Opposite Party No. 3.
Finding of the court: Mutation proceedings in respect of agricultural land which are presently governed by the provisions of sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 were earlier governed by sections 34 and 35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act - There is no finding recorded either by the Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of the property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to the Government. The orders impugned have placed reliance on the issue of whether Hadishul Nisha had remarried or not. Evidence produced by either side being inconclusive, still a finding was recorded that the petitioner had remarried and therefore was disentitled to the property of her late husband as per Sections 171 and 172 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Result: Writ petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Hadisulnisha for quashing of the order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sultanpur, in Appeal No. 89 of 2014 and for quashing of the order dated 13.04.2015, rejecting the petitioners’ restoration/recall application as also for quashing of the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 2719 under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the widow of Late Kamaal Ahmad son of Nazir Khan, the recorded tenure holder of several plots of land situated in village Seur Chamurkha, Pargana Bharosa, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. Late Nazir Khan had two sons, Late Kamaal Ahmad and one Ansar Ahmad, who has been arrayed as the opposite party no. 3. Kamaal Ahmad the husband of the petitioner died in June 1999 and the petitioner’s name was recorded under PA 11 by the Revenue Inspector on the basis of succession. The opposite party No. 3being the real brother of Kamaal Ahmad initially filed an application for mutation on the basis of forged Will deed which was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application was moved for recall of the order which was subsequently not pressed by Opposite Party No. 3.
3. The opposite party no. 3 after nearly ten years moved another application on 19.01.2009 for mutation of property of late Kamaal Ahmad on the ground of remarriage of the petitioner after the death of his brother. It was alleged that the petitioner had married one Atiq Ahmad resident of village Rethua, Pargana Haveli, District Faizabad. The said mutation application was rejected by the Tehsildar on 08.11.2013. The opposite party No. 3 preferred an Appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as “opposite party no. 2”) on 12.01.2013, registered as Appeal No. 89/2013.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that wrong address of the petitioner, showing her to be resident of village Rethua District Faizabad, was mentioned in the Appeal as a result whereof no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The Appellate Court presumed service upon the petitioner on the ground that notice had been sent through ordinary post, through registered post, and then substituted service was adopted through publication in the newspaper. The appeal was allowed ex-parte on 23.01.2014. The petitioner having derived knowledge of the said appellate order through village gossip moved an application for restoration/recall of order dated 23.01.2014 on 03.02.2014 but the same was rejected by the Appellate Court by observing that notice had been sent on the address mentioned in the Appeal and The Restoration application lacked details of date of deriving knowledge of the order passed in Appeal and the mode and manner of deriving such knowledge.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a Revision before the Additional Commissioner who rejected the same by making certain observations also on the merit of the case as set up by the parties. Such observations being prejudicial to the petitioner’s interest and holding her to have remarried and thus being disentitled to inherit the property of her late husband, the petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition.
6. This Court has gone through the pleadings on record. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition states clearly that she is still living in the house which had been left by her late husband late Kamaal Ahmad and had not married anyone after his death. It is her case that she is still in possession over the entire property left by her husband and to substantiate her claim she has filed photocopies of all relevant documents including electricity bills, ration card, voter ID card, Aadhaar card, Population Register, Family Register and copy of receipt of Gas connection and Bank passbook issued to her showing her address as village Seur Chamurkha, collectively as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.
It has been
Mutation proceedings - There is no finding recorded either by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to ....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not confer title; aggrieved parties must seek resolution in civil courts.
Mutation is for fiscal purpose and does not confer any right and title in favor of anyone. Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of ....
The judgment underscores the principle that admissions made by a party can serve as compelling evidence, and that procedural fairness requires that all objections and evidence be duly considered by t....
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
The mandatory reporting of acquisition of legal right and interest within 6 months, the jurisdiction of revenue courts in mutation proceedings, and the principle of estoppel were central legal points....
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
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
