The court affirmed that a party cannot challenge a mutation order after losing title proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure of prior litigation.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Chhote Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.2 and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondent No.1 and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in case No.1605. The aforesaid two orders have been passed in mutation proceedings.

3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter first.

4. The land in disputes relates to Gata Nos.220, 221, 240, 1019, total land measuring 3.7250 hectares recorded in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi, who was the mother of the private-respondent No.2. After the death of Smt. Saraswati Devi, the respondent No.2 Susheela Singh filed a mutation application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 on the basis of a Will dated 08.09.1986 said to have been executed by Smt. Saraswati Devi and the said mutation application came to be rejected on 05.02.2003 for want of prosecution.

5. Subsequently, the private-respondent No.2 filed another mutation application on 18.11.2014 almost after 11 years of the rejection of the first mutation application. It is stated that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party and without notice and without opportunity of hearing to contest the second mutation application it came to be allowed by means of the order dated 20.03.2015 which is available on record as Annexure No.5 in the instant petition.

6. In furtherance of the said order, the name of the private-respondent No.2 was incorporated in the revenue records. Later, when the original-petitioner came to know about the order dated 20.03.2015, he filed an application for recall. On the application for recall moved by the petitioner, the operation of the order dated 20.03.2015 was stayed. The private-respondent No.2 being aggrieved against the order dated 20.03.2015 whereby the mutation order passed in favour of the respondent No.2 was stayed, the revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Faizabad, who allowed the revision by means of the order dated 03.11.2017 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Ayodhya to decide the matter afresh on merits.

7. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Tehsildar was that once the first mutation application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.02.2003, it was not open for the Tehsildar to have entertained the subsequent mutation application and as such the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 20.03.2015 was bad. The petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances has assailed the order whereby the mutation application was allowed as well as the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 who rejected the application for recall and upholding the order of mutation has been challenged before this Court.

8. Shri Chhote Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation order passed in favour of the private-respondent No.2 was illegal inasmuch as once the first application for mutation had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.02.2003, the second application was not maintainable and thus allowing the second application and rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall was patently erroneous and as such is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 04.04.2019 while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition had passed a detailed order and stayed the operation of the order dated 21.12.2018 and 20.03.2015 and relied upon the aforesaid two decisions reported in Fateh Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Others, 2015 (126) RD 2 and Phagoo v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2018 (36) LCD 1254. It is urged on the strength of the aforesaid two decisions that the impugn