Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Smt. Sursatiya - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Gujratiya And Another - Respondents
Writ B. No. 18382 Of 2017
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Sunil Kumar Pandey
For the Respondents: S.C., Amish Kumar Srivastava, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Pankaj Dubey, Paras Nath Singh, Rishu Mishra.

The Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning in its orders; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law.

Headnote:(A) UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34 - Mutation proceedings - Dispute over property ownership following the death of recorded owner - Petitioner claimed rights through succession, while respondent claimed through a will - The Board of Revenue's order was found to be cryptic and lacking reasoning, leading to the affirmation of the Additional Commissioner's order. (Paras 2, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Jurisdiction of Revenue Board - The Board of Revenue must provide reasons for its decisions; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to record ownership of property after the death of Ganesh, who had left behind a will allegedly favoring the respondent. The Board of Revenue's order remanding the case for merit-based decision was challenged.

Findings of Court:
The Board of Revenue's order was set aside due to lack of reasoning, affirming the Additional Commissioner's decision.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the will and the sufficiency of the Board of Revenue's reasoning in its order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning for its decisions, and a lack of such reasoning renders the order invalid.

Result: Writ petition stands allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondent and Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Ganesh son of Mahaveer was recorded owner of Plot No. 116 area 0.574 hectare, situated in Village Sudaya, Pargana-Pachotar, District Ghazipur, Plot No. 118 area 0.215 hectare situated in Village Khateerpur Khas, Pargana-Pachotar, District Ghazipur, Plot No. 45 Ka area 0.020 hectare, Plot No. 51 area 0.036 hectare, Plot No. 61 area 0.735 hectare, situated in village-Khateerpur Takiya, Pargana-Pachotar, District Ghazipur. Ganesh Son of Mahaveer expired in the year 2004. The family pedigree for Ganesh Son of Mahaveer will be relevant for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, which is as under:-

After death of Ganesh Son of Mahaveer, petitioner filed an application on 15.02.2005, under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording the name of petitioner along with Ram Avtar Son of Ganesh to the extent of 1/2 share. It is also material fact that mutation application of the petitioner was dismissed in default on 29.03.2005, however, on recall application dated 8.01.2007 filed by the petitioner, the order dated 29.03.2005 was set aside and recall application was accordingly allowed on 18.06.2007. The Naib Tehsildar vide final order dated 25.06.2007 ordered to record the name of petitioner and Ram Avtar Son of Ganesh. Respondent no. 1/Gujratiya wife of Ram Avtar filed a restoration application on 17.11.2007 against the orders dated 18.06.2007 and 25.06.2007 on the basis of registered will deed dated 22.07.2004 alleged to be executed by Ganesh in her favour. The Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 09.05.2008 set-aside the orders dated 18.06.2007 and 25.06.2007 and rejected the three applications filed by Sursatiya. The Naib Tahasildar also ordered vide order dated 09.05.2008 that objection shall be filed by parties to the restoration application of Sursatiya dated 06.01.2007/08.06.2007. Petitioner challenged the order dated 09.05.2008 by way of three appeals under Sections 210/211 of UP Land Revenue Act, as property in question are situated in three villages. The Additional District Magistrate Sadar, Gazipur, vide order dated 12.12 2013 dismissed all the three appeals on the ground that mutation matter is still to be decided on merit by Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar under the order impugned in appeal. Petitioner filed three revisions (Revision Nos. 43, 44 and 45) before the Commissioner against the appellate order dated 12.12.2013 passed in Appeal Nos. 16/58/, 17/57 & 20/56. Respondent no. 1/Smt. Gujratiya filed her mutation application (Case No. 257 Gujratiya vs. Ganesh) on the basis of will deed alleged to be executed on 22.07.2004, which was dismissed by Naib Tehsildar, vide order dated 06.12.2004, for want of prosecution. The order dated 06.12.2004 was subsequently set-aside and mutation suit filed by respondent no. 1 was restored to its original number by Naib Tahasildar vide order dated 29.01.2009. Petitioner filed two appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which were dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2013. Against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed in Appeal No. 18/76 & 19/77, Revision Nos. 41 and 42 of 2013 were filed by petitioner before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. All the five Revisions (Revision Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of 2013) were heard by Additional Commissioner-II, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, and the same were allowed vide order dated 03.09.2015 setting-aside the orders dated 12.12.2013, 09.05.2008 and 29.01.2009 as well as the order dated 25.06.2007 was affirmed. Against the order dated 03.09.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner, respondent no. 1 filed Revision Nos. 2815, 3072, 3073, 3074 and 3075 of 2015 before the Board of Revenue, UP, Lucknow. The aforementioned revisions were heard by lea