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 matters.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Shri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the substituted heirs of the deceased respondent No. 4 and Shri Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the proposed respondent No. 5.

2. The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow whereby and whereunder the revision at the instance of the respondent No. 4 assailing the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the Addl. Commissioner has been allowed and the order of the Addl. Commissioner has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Court of Naib Tehsildar (Bidhnu Area), Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar. The challenge has also been laid to the consequential order dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Naib Tehsildar (Bidhnu Area), Tehsil Sadar, Kanpur Nagar whereby and whereunder the PA-11 entry in the name of the petitioner over the plots in dispute has been set aside and the name of the respondent No. 4 has been directed to be recorded over the plots.

3. Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court vide its order dated 7.10.2010 while entertaining the writ petition and issuing notice to the respondent No. 4 had stayed, the effect and operation of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 21.4.2009 and the consequential order of the Tehsildar dated 25.1.2010. An impleadment application has been filed on the strength of a sale deed dated 18.6.2011 executed in favour of one Taufeq Ahmad son of Anees Ahmad, resident of 89/167, Basmandi, Fatehpur, Uttar Fahimabad, District Kanpur Nagar by one Smt. Usha Rani who claimed right, title and interest in the properties subject matter of the mutation case. The impleadment has been sought on the ground that one Dhaniram Jain was the owner and in possession of House No. 80/75, Bansmandi, Cooperganj, Kanpur Nagar measuring 994 square yards. Dhaniram Jain had acquired the said property under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1983. Dhaniram Jain executed a registered Will dated 5.5.1984 in favour of his daughter-in-law. Smt. Usha Rani Jain bequeathing his entire movable and immovable holdings and mentioning the fact that his son Mahendra Kumar Jain deliberately changed his name as Krishna Bal Gupta. After the death of Dhaniram Jain, Smt. Usha Rani became the absolute owner of the property and her name was mutated over the property. The proposed respondent No. 5 has purchased the property from Smt. Usha Rani Jain vide sale deed dated 18.6.2010. In substance, it is contended that the proposed respondent No. 5 has an interest in the subject matter of the writ petition and shall be affected by the outcome of the writ petition and as such, is a necessary party to the writ petition and is liable to be impleaded.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner controverting the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application. In the counter affidavit, the factum of Dhaniram Jain being the owner and possession of the property bearing Municipal No. 80/75, Cooperganj, Bansmandi, Kanpur Nagar is not disputed. It is stated that Dhaniram Jain was the maternal grandfather (Nana) of the petitioner. It is also stated that the property No. 80/75, Cooperganj, Kanpur Nagar is not the subject matter of the writ petition. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit to the impleadment application that Dhaniram had executed registered Will dated 2.1.1987 in favour of the petitioner and no Will dated 5.5.1984 had been executed in favour of Smt. Usha Rani Jain. It is also stated that the petitioner is the son of late Krishna Bal Gupta and Smt. Sharda Devi Gupta.

5. The averments made in the counter affidavit to the impleadment application have not been