Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Rama Shanker and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Board of Revenue U.P. and ors. - Respondents
WRIT - B NO. - 32114 OF 2006.
Decided On : 08-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: N.N. Verma, K.P.S. Yadav, M.N. Verma, Shiv Shankar Singh, Suresh Chandra Dwivedi
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Hari Prasad Singh, M.D. Shukla, N.D. Shukla, N.D. Shukla, V.K. Singh

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.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 34, 220, and 211 - Mutation proceedings - Petitioners challenged the order of the Board of Revenue allowing mutation based on a sale deed executed by Smt. Sumariya, asserting that the deed was invalid due to pending civil suits - The court held that the mutation application could not be rejected in summary proceedings based on a sale deed not cancelled by any court - The Board of Revenue's review jurisdiction was affirmed. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 14)

(B) Review Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that review powers must be exercised judiciously and cannot be used to restore an illegal order, but can be invoked to correct errors in the interest of justice. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed a mutation application based on a sale deed from 1975 and 1977, which was initially rejected by the Naib Tehsildar and upheld by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Board of Revenue later allowed the mutation, which was challenged by the petitioners. Civil suits regarding the sale deed were pending.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deed had not been cancelled and that the mutation application could not be dismissed in summary proceedings. The Board of Revenue's order was upheld.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the sale deed, the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to review its orders, and the appropriateness of dismissing the mutation application in light of pending civil suits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mutation application could not be dismissed based on a sale deed that had not been cancelled by a court, and that the Board of Revenue had the authority to review its orders under the relevant sections of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as Mr. Hari Prasad Singh, Advocate in person who is impleaded as respondent No.3 in the instant petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording their names on the basis of sale deed dated 15.01.1975/06.10.1977 executed by Smt. Sumariya in favour of Hari Prasad Singh and others. The aforementioned mutation case was registered as case No.87/52 before Naib Tehsildar, Meja, Allabahad. The Naib Tehsildar heard the matter and vide order dated 13.07.1978 rejected the mutation application filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Against the order dated 13.07.1978 passed by Naib Tehsildar, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an appeal under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 which was registered as Appeal No.2013 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad and vide order dated 29.01.1979, the aforementioned appeal was dismissed. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed revision before Commissioner against the order dated 13.07.1978 and 29.01.1979 and the reference was sent by Additional Commissioner vide order dated 07.05.1980 before the Board of Revenue accordingly, reference was registered as reference case No.299 before Board of Revenue. In the aforementioned reference an order dated 07.05.1997 was passed by Board of Revenue by which reference was accepted and order of Naib Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate were set aside the as well as the names of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were ordered to be recorded as vendees of Smt. Sumariya. Petitioners filed a restoration application against the order dated 07.05.1997 before Board of Revenue and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2000 setting aside the earlier order dated 07.05.1997 and restored the reference case on its original number. The Board of Revenue vide subsequent order dated 01.03.2001 rejected the reference sent by the Additional Commissioner and maintained the order dated 13.07.1978 and 29.01.1979. Against the order dated 01.03.2001 passed by Board of Revenue respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed review application before Board of Revenue which was registered as Review Application No.109/L.R.2000-2001. The aforementioned review application was rejected by Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.07.2001. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed a second review application to recall the earlier order dated 13.07.2001 and 01.03.2001 which was registered as review application No.261/2000-2001. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.08.2001 granted interim order staying the earlier order dated 01.03.2001. Against the order dated 21.08.2001 petitioners filed a writ petition No.15684 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 13.05.2005 with the direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the review application of the respondent within a period of two months. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.05.2006 allowed the second review application filed by respondent No.3, setting aside the order dated 01.03.2001 as well as directed to record the name of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in place of Smt. Sumariya. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue.

3. Civil Suit No.576 of 1976 filed by petitioners for cancellation of sale deed executed on 15.01.1975 and another Civil Suit No.944 of 1980 filed by petitioners for cancellation of Sale deed executed on 06.10.1977 are pending before Civil Court.

4. This Court vide order dated 15.06.2006 entertained the matter and issued notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as stayed the operation of the order dated 25.05.2006 passed by Board of Revenue. In pursuance of the order dated 15.06.2006, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have file