Mutation proceedings are summary in nature, and existing entries indicating ownership should not be disturbed without substantial evidence, reaffirming the presumption of ownership based on prior recorded deeds.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for contesting respondent.

2. This matter is arising out of a mutation proceedings. Petitioners and contesting respondent are claiming their names on basis of their respective sale-deeds. So far as, claim of petitioners is concerned, it is on basis of a sale-deed dated 14.09.1961 and at the time of consolidation proceedings, their name was entered.Subsequently, the contesting respondent filed a mutation proceedings on basis of a sale-deed dated 25.07.1956, prior in time after a substantial period i.e. in the year 2015, claiming that during interregnum period, name of her father was recorded on basis of said sale-deed. Be that it may be, the said petition was dismissed with following operative part :-

3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contesting respondent filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by impugned order dated 20.01.2017. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

4. Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid referred order.

5. This Court has passed following order on 06.04.2017 :-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner by means of the instant writ petition is assailing the order dated 20 January 2017, passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.3003 of 2015, arising from a mutation proceeding under Section 34/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

It is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent had set up a case for correcting revenue record in 2014 on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been executed on 25 July 1956 in favour of her father. It is admitted that pursuant to the sale deed, name of the father of the second respondent was never mutated though, it has been noted in the impugned order that in one Fasli, name of the father of second respondent was recorded. It is further noted in the impugned order that the father of second respondent died in 2011. In the intervening period, consolidation proceedings commenced upon notification under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In the basic year, it is admitted that name of second respondent or her father was never recorded nor any objection was filed, therefore, it is urged that the proceedings attained finality upon publication of notification in terms of Section 49. It is also admitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the second respondent that for the first time, the application was moved in 2014 and during the entire period until 2014 barring one Fasli, name of petitioner continued in the revenue record as owner pursuant to the sale deed by the recorded tenure holder executed in 1966. Therefore, in this background, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a presumption of ownership in view of entry continued since long. Therefore, entry could not have been disturbed in the mutation proceedings under Section 34/39. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Sridhar Tripathi Vs. Board of Revenue; 1997 (15) LCD 464.

Submission requires consideration.

Four weeks time is granted to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of impugned order dated 20 January 2017, passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow in Revision No. 3003 of 2015, shall remain stayed, the second respondent is restrained fr