IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Shailendra Singh And Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner admin. Ayodhya Div. Ayodhya And ors. - Respondent
WRIT - C NO. - 22945 OF 2020.
Decided On : 06-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard petitioner No.1/Shailendra Singh, who appeared in person for himself and also for petitioner No.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Shri. Uma Shankar Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 7.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated: 08.11.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner ( Admitration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya in Revision No 00250/2019, Shailendra Singh & Others v. Surendra Bhadur Singh & Others connected ANNEXURE NO.1 to this writ petition.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated: 31.01.2019 passed by the Tahsildar Sadar District - Ayodhya in Case No 696/1999-2000, Smt. Rumali Devi v. Mu. Rajdei in under section - 34 LR Act In Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana- Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt- Ambedakar Nagar. connected as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this writ petition.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party not to interfere on peaceful possession of the petitioner from the land in dispute situated at Village Adampur Tindoli, ParganaAkabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt- Ambedakar Nagar during the pendency of the writ petition."
3. In nut shell, the present petition challenges the orders dated 31.01.2019 and 08.11.2019 passed in the proceedings related to mutation of name(s) in revenue records.
4. Before entering into the merits of the case, it would be apt to indicate that during the course of arguments, both the sides placed certain facts based upon the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in exercise of power under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and placed the said orders before this Court and the same are relevant for the purposes of final disposal of the present petition and accordingly, this Court took note of the same. The orders referred are part of the brief submissions filed by the learned counsel for the side opposite, Shri. U.S. Sahai, Advocate and the same are taken on record.
5. The relevant brief facts of the case are as under:-
(i) Vide order dated 11.06.1973, the Consolidation Officer (in short "C.O.") decided the claim(s) with regard to Gata Nos.8, 12, 55 and 69. The operative portion of the order dated 11.06.1973 reads as under:-
"In view of above discussed facts and circumstances the following orders are passed in respect of khata nos, 8, 12, 55 and 69.
1. The objectors Smt. Raj Del w/o Raghupati regarding khate nos. 8 and 12 are hereby rejected. The name of Ram Leut son of Jai Raj (pinor) aged twelve years under guardianship of Smt. Asha Kumari (pother) be recorded as co-tepant in khata nos, 8, 12, 55 and 69 along with his brothers Jagannath, Baijnath and Hanuman.
2. The objection of Hanoman and his real brothers against the entry of Smt. Phulraji w/o Thakurdin and Raj Del w/o Raghupati in khata nos. 8, 12, 55 and 69 are hereby rejected. The existing entry shall continue as usual.
3. In view of compromise dated 28.2.70 plot no. 107/0.11.10 of Khata no. 55 be recorded exclusively in the name of Jagannath, Baijnath, Hantman, Ram Lant sons of Jai Ram with 1/4th share each and the partition of remaining khatas be done as below:-
1. Smt. Raj Dei 1/2 share.
2. Baijnath 1/8 share.
3. Hanuman 1/8 share.
4. Jagannath 1/8 share.
5. Ram Lant 1/8 share.
The partition of khata no. 69 be done as below:-
1. Bansraj 1/2 share.
2. Smt. Raj Dei 1/4 share.
3. Hanuman 1/16 share.
9. Jagannath 1/16 share.
5. Baijnath 1/16 share.
6. Ram Lant 1/16 share.
The partition proceedings regarding khata nos 8 and 12 are hereby dropped as the plots comprised in these khatas are out of consolidation.
This order shall govern case file nos. 285/9803, 286/9804, 287/ 19805.. and 288/9806. Let the case files be consignet to R/Room after necessary amaldaramad.
Sd. Illegible.
C.O. Mauspur.
Sikawari.
Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs.
Bhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs v. Teja Singh (Dead) By Lrs.
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co.
Government of A. P. v. Gudepu Sailoo
Hansraj Tirathram v. Administrator, Municipality Jammu
Homi Rustom G. Pardiawala v. Sub-Inspector Baig
Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (LA) (2005) 7 SCC 190 : AIR 2005 SC 3165
Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 656 : AIR 2011 SC 1127
Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh
M.V.S. Mkantkayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami
Mool Chand Yadav v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited Rampur
Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal (2002) 2 SCC 256 : AIR 2002 SC 665
Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar
Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K
S. Abdul Karim v. M. K. Prakash
Sidheshwar Mukharjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh
State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari
Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner
Surajit Singh v. Harbans Singh
T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Put. Ltd.
AI
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes in mutation cases; established rights remain intact despite challenges.
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.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not determine title; a registered sale deed remains valid until annulled by a competent court.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Revenue authorities must effect mutation based on registered civil court consent decrees without adjudicating title, probate, prohibitory orders, or registration issues, as proceedings are fiscal onl....
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title, probate or decree validity in mutation proceedings; must effect mutation on registered civil decrees for fiscal purposes unless set aside by competent cou....
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.