Mutation proceedings are summary and do not determine substantive rights; ongoing civil suits concerning property rights take precedence in adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 20th March, 2024.

3. To put the matter in a perspective, certain facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter.

4. A mutation proceedings were initiated in respect of agricultural plot of land bearing No.370/1, 716, 376, 379, 380 situate in Village-Meerpur, Pargana & Tehsil Lakhimpur, District-Kheri. The said property had been put to public auction on 27.05.2014 in pursuance of satisfaction of a decree passed in a civil suit bearing No.331 of 2004, which gave rise to execution case No.15 of 2005.

5. The property in question initially belonged to Fateh Bahadur son of Bacchu Lal. In the instant petition, the controversy is limited to plot No.716 measuring 0.8740 hectare situate in Village- Meerpur, Pargana & Tehsil Lakhimpur, District-Kheri. Upon the death of Fateh Bahadur, his legal heirs sold the property in question, i.e., plot No.716 as described above to Shri Indresh Kumar- private respondent No.3 by means of a registered sale deed dated 01.10.2010. Some part of the property was sold out in execution case No.15 of 2005, which was thereafter confirmed and the sale certificate was issued and thereafter, the registered sale deeds were also executed.

6. The dispute arose when the property bearing plot No.716 was sold by Fateh Bahadur in favour of Saket Educational Society by means of a registered deed dated 06.05.2002. It later revealed that Fateh Bahadur had already sold the said land to one Shri Nizamuddin and Shri Reyazuddin on 30th October, 1999. Since the property had already been sold out by Fateh Bahadur, hence, he was not the owner and competent to execute the sale of the property to Saket Educational Society.

7. It is in this context that Saket Educational Society filed a civil suit bearing No.331 of 2004 seeking damages from Fateh Bahadur. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20.07.2005 and the said decree was put into execution which gave rise to the execution case No.14 of 2005.

8. While the said decree was being executed, in pursuance of the orders passed by the executing court, the Kurk Amin attached various agricultural properties of Fateh Bahadur for the purposes of satisfaction of the decree. Later, the said property was put to court auction and though objections were filed by private respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of Fateh Bahadur, but the auction was confirmed by the competent civil court and sale certificate was issued on 19.02.2015 and in furtherance thereof sale deed was executed on 26.02.2015.

9. Thus, it would be seen that on one hand Saket Educational Society, in pursuance of the execution proceedings, was declared as the auction purchaser and on the other hand, the legal heirs of deceased Fateh Bahadur executed a sale deed in favour of Indresh Kumar- respondent No.3. Indresh Kumar applied for mutation of his name, while the name of the petitioner already stood mutated vide order dated 28.01.2016 on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.02.2015.

10. Private respondent No.3, on becoming aware of the mutation order dated 28.01.2016 in favour of the petitioner, moved an application for recall of the said order along with an application for condonation of delay. After due contest, the Naib Tehsildar allowed the restoration application and it set aside/recalled its earlier