Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.

Judgment

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Heard Dr L P Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Sri Mohd Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauria and Sri Sanjay Tripathi, Advocates for respondent no.4.

2. For the reasons disclosed hereinafter, since respondent nos.5 to 11 are proforma respondents, notices need not be issued to them.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.

4. Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 30.01.2018 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Khushhal Ganj, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, whereby the land in dispute comprised in gata no.902 admeasuring 0.325 hectares, situate in village Gauri, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow has been ordered to be mutated in the name of respondent no.4. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 207 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006 against the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, has been dismissed. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 25.04.2018 and the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 30.01.2018, has been dismissed.

5. The facts of the case, which can be culled from the pleadings available on record and the submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties, are that the common ancestor of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 to 11, late Gopi Nath Rastogi owned certain properties in village Gauri, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow. These properties included the land of khasra plot nos. 901 and 902.

6. The following pedigree, which is not in dispute, is relevant to be mentioned for proper adjudication of the issues involved in this petition:

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that plot no.901 came to be recorded in the name of Lal Chand Rastogi- predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. There is no dispute in relation to plot no.901. The dispute in this case concerns plot no.902 which was recorded in the name of late Brij Nath Rastogi, who is ancestor of respondent nos.8 to 11.

8. It is relevant to notice at this juncture itself that respondent nos.8 to 11 are the predecessors-in-interest of respondent no.4, who are said to have parted with their rights in the land in dispute in favour of respondent no.4 by executing a sale deed on 06.04.2017, which has been registered on 10.04.2017. Respondent nos.5 to 7 are the successors in interest of late Lal Chand Rastogi, who is said to have parted with his rights in land in dispute in favour of the petitioner.

9. It is in this view of the matter that respondent nos.5 to 11 have been treated to be proforma respondents in this case and the Court has thus not issued notice to them.

10. It has been pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land of plot no.901 was recorded in the name of Lal Chand Rastogi and that the plot no.902 came to be recorded in the name of Brij Nath Rastogi and since immovable properties belonged to common ancestor and were scattered at many places, therefore surviving legal heirs and the successors of Gopi Nath Rastogi entered into family settlement through a document dated 12.11.1978. The