Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
Vijay Kumar Singh And Others – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others – Respondent
Writ C No. - 3837 of 2024
Decided on : 03-05-2024
REVENUE LAW - MUTATION OF LAND RECORDS - Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006; Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, particularly Section 210 regarding revisions, and Section 144 concerning alternative remedies. It also referenced the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, specifically Section 6A related to land consolidation, and Section 171 regarding succession. The court emphasized the importance of admissions as evidence under Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The interpretations of these provisions influenced the court's decision to quash the revisional order, highlighting procedural irregularities and the failure to consider critical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a revisional order from the Additional Commissioner regarding the mutation of agricultural land originally held by their ancestor, Late Raj Bahadur Singh. The petitioners claimed their rights based on inheritance, while the respondent no. 4 contested this, asserting his claim through a death certificate of his mother, which the petitioners argued was forged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisional court had failed to consider the petitioners' objections and the evidence presented, including the admissions made by the respondent no. 4 regarding his lineage. The court noted that the revisional court's decision was made without proper evaluation of the original documents and evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the writ petition given the alternative remedy under Section 144 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, the validity of the death certificate presented by the respondent no. 4, and whether the revisional court had acted within its jurisdiction and considered all relevant evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the writ petition was maintainable under exceptions to the alternative remedy rule, particularly where the orders were passed based on fraud or misrepresentation. It emphasized the significance of admissions as evidence and the necessity for the revisional court to consider all objections and evidence before making a decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the revisional order dated 09.04.2024, and remanded the case to the revisional court for fresh consideration in light of the observations made in the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.
1. Short counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed by counsel for the respondent no.4.
4. With the consent of the parties the matter is being finally decided at this stage itself.
5. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order/judgment dated 09.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 1/Additional Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in revision no. 341/2024 (computerized no. C202404000000341 titled as Parikshit Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors., under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
6. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition as the petitioners have an alternative remedy to file a suit under Section 144 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 2006).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court and the alternative remedy to file a suit under Section 144 of the Code, 2006 is not attracted in the case of the petitioners as per exceptions (iv) & (v) carved out by this Court in the case of Hadisul Nisha v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad [(2021) 6 ADJ 176] which has been followed in the case of Kalawati v. Board of Revenue & ors. [(2022) 4 ADJ 578].
8. It is further submitted that late Raj Bahadur Singh was the original tenure holder of the agricultural land in villages Raipatti and Gehnaar in Tehsil- Milkipur, District Faizabad/Ayodhya. The pedigree which the petitioners are relying is admitted to the respondent no. 4 also. For convenience, the pedigree is given below:-
9. It is further submitted that as per the pedigree mentioned above, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are great Grandsons of late Raj Bahadur Singh being the son of Jagdamba, who was son of Ram Murti Singh and Ram Murti Singh was the second son of Raj Bahadur Singh whereas the petitioner no. 3 is the grand daughter-in-law of late Raj Bahadur Singh i.e. w/o late Jagdamba Singh, grandson of Late Raj Bahadur Singh. The respondent no. 4 was the maternal great grandson of Late Raj Bahadur Singh i.e. Son of Mayawati and Mayawati was daughter of Bhagwanta, who was wife of Shiv Murti Singh, who was eldest son of late Raj Bahadur Singh.
10. It is further submitted that after the village had come under consolidation, on the application of respondent no. 4, the land was entered in his name by the Consolidation Committee under Section 6A of the Act, 1953 on 10.04.2013 passed by Chakbandi Karta, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which, an interim order dated 19.06.2013 was passed which was challenged by the respondent no. 4 by filing Writ Petition No. 795 of 2013 (Consolidation). The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the revision expeditiously. The respondent no. 4 filed an objection on 02.09.2013 and stating that his mother predeceased his grandmother i.e. maternal grandmother of respondent no.4. During the pendency, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 795 of 2013 and this Court by its judgment and order dated 18.05.2016 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file their objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953.
11. It is further submitted that before the petitioners could have filed their objections, the notification under Section 6 was p
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 - 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 proceedings are summary in nature and do not decide substantive rights, thus a writ petition is not maintainable.
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts; any order obtained through fraud is a nullity and can be questioned at any time.
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 ....
: Mutation – When no limitation is prescribed for filing a revision petition, same must be filed within a reasonable time.
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
