Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Smt. Madeena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others – Respondent
Writ B No.1596 of 2024
Decided on : 28-05-2024
REVENUE LAW - MUTATION OF LAND - UP REVENUE CODE, 2006: SECTIONS 34, 35, 207, 212, 214, 206 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, particularly Sections 34 and 35, which govern mutation in cases of succession or transfer. It interpreted Section 35(2) as allowing appeals against Tehsildar orders to the Sub-Divisional Officer, emphasizing that the appeal's maintainability was contingent on proper jurisdiction. The court concluded that the appeal filed by the respondent was valid, as the petitioner failed to raise jurisdictional objections timely, thus influencing the decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue regarding a land mutation dispute. The land was originally owned by Noor Khan, passed to his son Natthu, and subsequently to his widow Smt. Sandal. After Smt. Sandal's second marriage, the petitioner claimed she had no rights to the land, yet Smt. Sandal executed a sale deed in favor of the respondent. The petitioner sought to cancel this deed, leading to a series of appeals and revisions regarding the mutation of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal filed by the respondent was maintainable and that the petitioner had waived her right to object to the jurisdiction of the S.D.M. by not raising it at the earliest opportunity. The court emphasized that the procedural requirements of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code were followed, and the objections raised by the petitioner were not timely or adequately substantiated.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal filed by the respondent was maintainable before the S.D.M. Mauranipur or S.D.M. Jhansi? 2. Did the petitioner waive her right to object to the jurisdiction of the S.D.M. by failing to raise it at the appropriate time?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that objections regarding jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver of such objections. The court also clarified that the appeal under Section 207 of the UP Revenue Code was valid, as it aligned with the provisions governing appeals from Tehsildar orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the S.D.M. and the Board of Revenue.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature directing and commanding the Tehsildar, Tehsil Mauranipur, District Jhansi, i.e. respondent no. 4, to stay the further proceeding going on by him in Case no. 6802/2023, Meharban Singh Vs. Smt. Sandal.”
3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that the land in dispute i.e. land no. 1362 area 0.3820, 1260 area 1.4320, 1363 area 0.1080 situated as Mauza Dewari Singhpur, Tehsil Mauranipur, District Jhansi was recorded in the name of one Noor Khan. After the death of Noor Khan, the property came to his son, namely, Natthu. Natthu was married to Smt. Sandal. Petitioner is the daughter of Natthu and Smt. Sandal. After the death of Natthu, the recorded tenure holder, name of Smt. Sandal was recorded in the revenue record being widow of Natthu. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of her father namely, Natthu. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Sandal contracted, second marriage with Sakur Khan, son of Ilahi Khan on 11.04.1975 after the death of her husband, Natthu and because of the second marriage, Smt. Sandal, the widow of Natthu was left with no right, title or interest in the land in question. Name of Smt. Sandal continued in revenue records and taking advantage of the same Smt. Sandal executed a sale deed dated 31.08.2017 of land number 1260, area 1.4320 in favour of respondent no. 5. After coming to know about the sale deed executed by Smt. Sandal in favour of respondent no. 5, the petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 114 of 2017 for cancellation of the sale dated 31.08.2017, executed by Smt. Sandal in favour of respondent no. 5. The aforesaid suit is pending and the trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mauranipur, Jhansi by its order dated 23.08.2022 has directed the parties to maintain status quo. After the execution of sale deed on 31.08.2017 by Smt. Sandal in favour of respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 5 moved an application under section 34 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') for mutation of his name over the land in dispute on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 31.08.2017 in the court of Naib Tehsildar, Rewan, District-Jhansi. The aforesaid case was transferred by order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jhansi to the court of the Tehsildar, Garautha, District-Jhansi on an application moved by the respondent no. 5. The Tehsildar, Garautha, District-Jhansi by an order dated 04.03.2023 has rejected the mutation application filed by the respondent no. 5. Against the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Garautha, the respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal under Section 207 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mauranipur, District-Jhansi. The appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 was allowed by the S.D.M., Jhansi by its order dated 21.08.2023 and order passed by the Tehsildar, Garautha dated 04.03.2023 was set aside and the court below was directed to consider the case afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties. The petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue-respondent no.2 against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by S.D.M., Jhansi, which was registered as Revision No. 3434 of 2023, Smt. Madeena versus Meharban Singh and others. By order dated 21.12.2023, the respondent no. 2
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver; appeals under the UP Revenue Code must follow the prescribed procedures, and jurisdictio....
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The court ruled that an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is subject to revision under Section 210, emphasizing the supervisory role of the Board or Commissioner over subor....
Point of Law - By amendment in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court was increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
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 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 applies to areas under Nagar Panchayats, and the availability of a statutory alternative remedy precludes the entertainment of a writ petition.
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
