Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 555
2010 (1) UAD 450
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
WPMS No. 1859 of 2009
VIRENDRA SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
LATE SRI RAM SINGH & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 09.11.2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. A. Rab, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 & 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Where there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order, normally interference will not be made in exercise of power either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India — Held — Only in exceptional cases, when manifest miscarriage of justice, is bound, powers under Article 227 and 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. (Paras 9 to 12)
(B) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Secs. 34 & 54 — It is well settled principle of law that Revenue Courts while exercising power u/S 34 and 54 of Land Revenue Act, decide the case summarily and in summary proceedings, complicated question of title cannot be decided — Moreover, any finding recorded in summary proceedings cannot be Res judicata in subsequent regular title suit. (Para 14)
(C) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Secs. 34 & 54 — Held — Revenue Courts, while exercising powers u/s 34 and 54 of the Act, 1901 decide the case summarily — Complicated question of title could not be decided in such proceedings — And that, there was no justification for the Revisional Court to enter into the question of fact, which was already involved in the pending regular suit — Revisional Court committed grave jurisdictional error — Impugned order of the Revisional Court alongwith orders passed by lower courts in proceedings under Secs. 34 & 54 accordingly quashed.
(Paras 14, 16, 17, 21)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 226 vkSj 227 ds vUrxZr i;Zos{kdh; dk;Z{ks= & tc iz'uxr vkns'k esa Li"V :i ls dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha gS rks lk/kkj.kr;k vfèkdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vuqPNsn 226 vFkok 227 Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vUrxZr dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk,xk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd viokfnr dslst esa gh tgk¡ Li"V :i ls U;k; dk nq#i;ksx gqvk gks vuqPNsn 226 vkSj 227 Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ¼izLrj 9 ls 12½
¼c½ mdizd Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1901 /kkjk 34 vkSj 54 & dkuwu vkSj jktLo U;k;ky;ksa dk ;g izfrikfnr fl)kUr gS fd tc Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34 vkSj 54 ds vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsl dks ljljh esa r; fd;k tk, rks ljljh dk;Zokgh esa feyfd;r dk xgu iz'u r; ugha fd;k tk ldrk & bl ds vfrfjDr ljljh dk;Zokgh dk dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; ckn esa nk;j fd;s x;s feyfd;r ds okn esa ^jsl twfMdsVk* ^iwoZ fuf.kZr* ds :i esa iz;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 14½
¼l½ mdizd Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1901] /kkjk 34 vkSj 54 ds vUrxZr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k fd Hkw&jktLo U;k;ky; tc /kkjk 34 vkSj 54 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djsa rks dsl dks ljljh rkSj ij fuf.kZr djs & ,slh dk;Zokgh esa feyfd;r dk xaHkhj iz'u gy ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vkSj blhfy, iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; dks rF; ds iz'u esa izos'k djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha Fkk tks fd fu;fer okn esa iwoZ esa gh fopkjk/khu Fkk & iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk xaHkhj {ks=kf/kdkj lEcfU/kr =qfV dh xbZ Fkh & iz'uxr vkns'k iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; ds lkFk lkFk voj U;k;ky; }kjk 34 vkSj 54 ds vUrxZr dh xbZ dk;Zokgh Hkh [kf.Mr dh xbZA ¼izLrj 14] 16] 17] 21½
With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
2. Heard at length Mr. Manoj Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Rab, counsel for the respondents.
3. By way of present writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 09.10.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, by which revision No. 07/2002-03 was allowed. While allowing the Revision, learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner has observed that longstanding entries were illegally disturbed in summary proceedings. Learned Commissioner also held that Mr. Raj Narain was sole owner in his own right and property in dispute was self acquired property.
4. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioners moved an application before the Record Officer, Dehradun under section 54 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, saying property in dispute was of Mr. Fateh Singh. It was further contended that Fateh Singh had four sons namely Raj Narain, Narain Singh, Nand Ram & Sher Singh. According to the petitioners, this property was HUF property and after death of Fateh Singh, names of his above four sons should have been mutated. However mutation was wrongly made in favour of Raj Narain which should be deemed in the capacity of Karta Khandan. Petitioners, claiming themselves co-sharer being sons of Sher Singh, sought mutation. Learned Record Officer vide order dated 28th January, 1994 allowed the application of the petitioners, directed to mutate the names of the petitioners as co-sharers. Learned Record Officer has observed that property in dispute was of HUF property.
5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Record Officer dated 28.01.1994, an appeal was preferred by the respondents herein which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.06.1997, upholding the findings recorded by the Record Officer.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by the Record Officer as well as the Appellate Court, respondents herein preferred revision No. 07/2002-03 before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 09.10.2009.
7. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Revisional Court, at one place, held that in summary proceedings under section 54, question of title and dispute pertaining to longstanding entries should not be decided and yet, at another place, Revisional Court entered into the complicated question of title and disturbed and findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and substituted its own findings.
8. Mr. A. Rab, learned counsel for the respondents argued that present writ petition is not maintainable arising out of the summary proceedings i.e. under section 34 or 54 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Mr. Rab has placed reliance on 1996 (87) RD page 569 Summer Lal & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and judgment of Apex Court reported in 2009 volume 5 ALJ 244 Radhey Shyam & anr. Vs. Chahabi Nath & Ors.
9. Allahabad High Court in the matter of Summer Lal (supra) in paragraph No. 5 has held :-
“In view of the above provision of U.P. Land Revenue Act even if the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the question remains that in such orders which are passed in summary proceedings should this Court invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Where there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order, normally interference will not be made in exercise of power either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in this case have alternative remedy.”
10. I am in full agreement with the observations made by the Learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in para 5 that where there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order, normally interference will not be made in exercising of power either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of I
