SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1886

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: In Person, Sarvesh Kumar Saxena
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Uma Shankar Sahai

Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes in mutation cases; established rights remain intact despite challenges.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 11(1) and Section 48; U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34 - Writ petition challenging orders related to mutation of names in revenue records - The court emphasized that the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on title disputes while dealing with mutation cases. The rights of Smt. Raj Dei, established by the Consolidation Officer in 1973, remained intact despite subsequent challenges. The sale deed executed by Smt. Raj Dei in 1995 was upheld as valid, and the petitioners' claims were dismissed for lack of merit. (Paras 10, 12, 17)

(B) Natural Justice - The court reiterated that relief not founded on pleadings cannot be granted, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural norms in judicial proceedings. (Paras 14, 15)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top