Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Sunita Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue And Others - Respondents
Writ B No. 2 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2024
(A) The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2) - National Highway Act, 1956 - Sections 3A and 3D - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 143 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 80, 81, 83 - Mutation proceedings - The petitioner challenged the mutation order favoring private respondents after the auction of property due to loan default. The court held that the Tehsildar retained jurisdiction to entertain mutation applications even after land was declared non-agricultural and acquired under the NH Act. The auction sale was valid as it occurred before the acquisition notification. (Paras 1-70)
(B) Jurisdiction of Tehsildar - The Tehsildar retains authority to process mutation applications for non-agricultural land, and the auction proceedings under the Act of 2002 were valid. (Paras 31-47)
(C) Rights of parties - The court refrained from adjudicating on compensation claims, which are to be determined by the competent authority under the NH Act. (Paras 60-70)
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 229 of 2020 whereby the revision of the private respondent no. 2 was allowed and the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner was set aside, as a consequence, the mutation order passed in favour of the private respondents no. 2 dated 20.06.2018 has been affirmed.
2. The matter at hand has a chequered history, accordingly, it will be appropriate to take a glance at the facts giving rise to the instant petition first:-
3. The dispute in question relates to Plot No. 470M measuring 0.0693 hectares situate in Balia Shahbadi, Pargana Haweli Awadh, Tehsil-Sadar, District Faizabad.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the said property was purchased in part by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.08.2000 and later the petitioner again purchased some more part of Plot No. 470M measuring 0.0438 hectares on 01.07.2006. The petitioner also got the said land declared as non-agricultural by means of order dated 27.11.2012.
5. The petitioner thereafter for the purposes of expanding her business under the name and style of M/s S.P. Foods, took a loan from Allahabad Bank, Naharbagh Branch, Faizabad. A cash credit limit was granted to the tune of Rs. 20,42,000/-, a term loan was granted for Rs. 5,00,000/- and a vehicle loan was also granted for a sum of Rs. 1,42,000/-
6. The petitioner being the proprietor of a firm M/s S.P. Foods, could not service the loan, accordingly, the Bank who had granted the credit facilities issued a notice under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2002) requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,96,535/- along with interest and other expenses.
7. At this stage, the petitioner assailed the said notice by filing a writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court bearing W.P. No. 6925 (MB) of 2014 which was disposed of by means of order dated 01.08.2014. The Division Bench of this Court at the admission stage itself disposed of the petition directing the Bank-authorities to look into the matter regarding the value which was disputed by the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
8. In the aforesaid backdrop, while a one time settlement scheme was prevalent in the Bank, hence, the Bank informed the petitioner that in case if the petitioner wishes, she can take the benefit of the OTS scheme.
9. The record indicates that in a National Lok Adalat held on 02.12.2015, a settlement was arrived at in between the petitioner and the Bank and in terms whereof all the accounts of the petitioner was compromised for a total sum of Rs. 29,50,000/- out of which Rs. 4,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner in 'No Lien Account' was to adjusted and the balance sum of Rs. 25,50,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner in one lump-sum by 31st March, 2016 to the Bank.
10. It is also the case of the petitioner that the remaining sum of Rs. 25,50,000/- could not be paid by 31st March, 2016, however, the petitioner further alleges that there was a further settlement in terms whereof the petitioner was required to deposit the outstanding sum uptil 30th September, 2016.
11. It is the case of the petitioner that the said subsequent proceedings/negotiations which had taken place with the Bank was through one Sri Rahul Rai who was a representative of Asset Recovery Management Branch of the said Bank. As per the said arrangement, Sri Rahul Rai was to arrange for a purchaser and the property would be sold for a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- and after adjusting the outstanding sum of the Bank, the remaining would be paid to the petitioner, however, this alleged arrangement did not materialize and being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faizabad bearing Regular Suit No. 217 of 2017 wher
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....
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 ....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
A landowner's right to mutate property based on a registered sale deed cannot be legally denied without lawful acquisition or evidence of ownership disputes.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
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....
(1) Mutation – There is no bar for seeking mutation based on a Will – However, in a case of serious dispute regarding validity/genuineness of Will, appropriate course for parties would be to approach....
Mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code do not determine title or confer ownership; such matters are subject to civil court adjudication, and petitions against mutation orders are generally not ....
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
