Mutation orders based on valid sale deeds remain effective despite ongoing civil disputes; judicial review under the U.P. Land Revenue Act is limited to clear illegality.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Devesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Padmakar Pandey learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar vide order dated 1.10.2014 under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act ordered to record the name of respondent no.5 on the basis of sale deed executed by Mst. Kesha on 1.6.2013 in favour of respondent no.5 in respect to 1/2 share of Plot No.1696 Ka area 0.080 hectare, 1697 area 0.1000 hectare, 1698 area 0.1000 hectare, 1701 area 0.2000 hectare total area 0.480 hectare situated in Village- Katri Khewra, Pergana, Tehsil and District- Kanpur Nagar. Petitioners challenged the order of Tehsildar dated 1.10.2014 in appeal before Sub Divisional Officer under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act which was dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2016. Petitioners again challenged the appellate order in Revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act which has been dismissed vide order dated 7.2.2023 hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment dated 1.10.2014 passed by respondent no.4, judgment dated 14.9.2016 passed by respondent no.3 and judgment dated 7.2.2023 passed by respondent no.2. Civil Proceedings are pending before Civil Court including Civil Suit No. 1455 of 2013 filed by petitioners in respect to sale deed in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that mutation application filed on behalf of respondent No.5 on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 01.06.2013 has been allowed in arbitrary manner and the order has been maintained in appeal and revision without considering the case of the petitioners. He further submitted that one Civil suit No.1456 of 2016 filed by petitioners against one Dharmendra Kumar, Rajesh Kumar as well as Shamshad Alam was decreed ex-parte by judgment and decree dated 23.5.2022 by which the sale deed executed on 19.2.2016 in favour of Dharmendra Kumar Verma was cancelled. He further submitted that judgment and decree dated 23.05.2022 passed in civil suit No.1456 of 2016 was placed before the revisional court, but revisional court without considering the judgment and decree of the civil court has dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.

4. Mr. S.C. Verma assisted by Mr. Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that sale deed executed by recorded owner in favour of respondent No.5 on 01.06.2013 has not been cancelled till date by any Court. He further submitted that mutation application on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 01.06.2013 was allowed by the Tehsildar and order has been maintained in appeal and revision. He further submitted that Commissioner has rightly recorded the finding that there is no evidence on record for cancellation of sale deed executed on 01.06.2013. He further submitted that petitioners have challenged the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 through Civil Suit No. 1455 of 2013 but the matter is pending before civil court, as such there is no illegality in the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, which has been maintained in appeal and revision. He further submitted that decree passed by Civil Court in Suit No. 1456 of 2016 is in respect to different matter as such the same can not be relied upon. He further placed finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner regarding death certificate produced by the petitioners in the proceeding in order to demonstrate that petitioners have committed fraud in obtaining death certificate of Kesha @ Parvati. He further subm