Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Mahanth Chaturbhuj Das @ Chanda – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Misc. Single No. 14768 of 2021
Decided On : 15-07-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Writ petition – Writ of mandamus - Nazul Rule - Rule 5, 5A – Mutation procedure - Change entries in Nazul register - To allow mutation application - A nazul lease deed for 90 years with renewal due after every 30 years had been executed - Petitioner states order passed by respondent no. 3 is arbitrary in nature and therefore the petitioner had filed the Appeal - The Appeal has been rejected on a misconceived ground of being not maintainable under Rule 5A of Nazul land - Satyugi Narain Chaddha in his Will specifically mentioned that he wanted the property to remain in the maleline and therefore had Willed it to his nephew- the son of Triloki Narain Chaddha - Order which was challenged on the ground that the Additional District Magistrate/Nazul Officer had no power of mutation under the Nazul Rules - It was only the Collector who could do so.
Finding of the court: Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Nazul Officer, had rejected the mutation application of the petitioner only on the ground that the term of lease executed in 1917 had come to an end, therefore, there was no reason for mutation of the name of the petitioner on the basis of such lease which had already expired - The Commissioner observed that under Rule 5A of the Nazul Rules, the office of the Commissioner had no role to play and had no jurisdiction to consider the Appeal/Revision. He thus rejected the said Appeal/Revision as not maintainable by his order - That Additional District Magistrate/Nazul Officer was authorized to order mutation as in the Act itself there was a provision that the word “Collector” shall include the “Additional District Magistrate” as well – Court finds sub-Rule 4 of Rule 5A that a remedy is provided in the Nazul Rules itself as it says that no order passed under the Rule shall debar any person from establishing his right to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.P. Nag, learned standing counsel appearing for the State-Respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and also the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Nazul Officer, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) and prays for a mandamus directing the respondent to allow mutation application dated 10.12.2013 filed under Rule 5A of the Nazul Manual in respect of Khasra No. 51 admeasuring 3 Bigha 10 Biswa 12 Biswansi 12 Kachwansi situated in Mohalla Guptarghat, Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the successor of Mahant Gopal Das, who was spiritual brother/Gurubhai of Mahant Maha Tyagi Mohan Das Mauni Baba chela Mahanth Ram Bharosey Das. A nazul lease deed for 90 years with renewal due after every 30 years had been executed between the Secretary of State of Indian Dominion and Baba Janki Das Maharaj Phalahari Chela Sri. Ram Sevak Das Ji with respect to the aforesaid Khasra No. 51 on 26.07.1927. The same was registered before the Registrar, Faizabad. The lease agreement was renewed by the Competent Authority on an application made by the Mahanth Baba Ram Prasad Das chela Baba Janki Das Maharaj on 04.06.1958. Thereafter, the lease agreement was renewed on an application of Mahanth Mohan Das Mauni Baba on 30.07.1997 with effect from 1987, which was also a registered agreement. Mahanth Mohan Das executed a Will in favour of Mahanth Gopal Das and after death of Mahanth Mohan Das, Mahanth Gopal Das filed a mutation application and his name was noted in the revenue record and he remained in possession over the said Khasra No. 51 till his death.
4. Mahanth Gopal Das appointed the petitioner Mahanth Chaturbhuj Das as the Mahanth of the Temple after his death. On the death of Mahanth Gopal Das, a Bhandara was organized on 18.10.2008, wherein all other Mahanths executed Mohajjarnama in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Temple/Yagyashala situated in Khasra No. 51 at Guptarghat. The petitioner moved an application under Rule 5A of the Nazul Rule before the Additional District Magistrate Faizabad/Ayodhya for mutation of his name. The application was registered as Mutation Case No. 639 of 2013. A report of the Naib Tehsildar was sought which was submitted. The petitioner filed the evidence in the form of Mohajjarnama executed on 18.10.2008. The respondent no. 3 rejected the mutation application on 11.07.2014.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an Appeal before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, registered as Appeal/Revision No. 62 of 2014. Learned Commissioner set aside the order dated 11.07.2014 and remanded the matter to the respondent no. 3 to consider afresh.
6. The mutation application was revived and registered as Case No. 171 of 2016. The Naib Tehsildar Nazul again submitted a report in favour of the petitioner but the respondent no. 3 rejected the mutation application on 22.05.2017 on the ground that the tenure of lease had expired on 22.03.2017 therefore there was no need of mutation of the name of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an Appeal on 22.05.2017 before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, which has been rejected on 03.03.2021 on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the matter under Rule 5A of the Nazul Rules.
7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by respondent no. 3 is arbitrary in nature and therefore the petitioner had filed the Appeal. The Appeal has been rejected on a misconceived ground of being not maintainable under Rule 5A of Nazul land.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the matter was remanded by the Commissioner on 01.12.2016, a report was submitted by the Tehsildar, Nazul on 31.12.2016 and had the mutation applicati
Point of law: It is settled law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and if an order is passed in such proceedings or any writ petition thereafter challenging such orders passed in mutatio....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Divisional Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision application and passing the impugned orders, as the power o....
The Tehsildar retains jurisdiction over mutation applications for non-agricultural land, even post-acquisition notifications, and auction sales under the Securitisation Act are valid if conducted pri....
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 ....
The Tehsildar retains jurisdiction to entertain mutation applications for non-agricultural land even after acquisition notifications under the National Highway Act, and auction proceedings under the ....
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
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
