High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Prabhu Dayal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 2708 of 2007  RD-AH 1084 (17 January 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2708 of 2007
State of U. P. and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act.
The facts are that the sale deed dated 27.6.1984 of the land in dispute was executed by father of respondents no. 5 to 9 in favour of father of petitioner. After death of father, petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for mutation of his name on the basis of sale deed. The proceedings came to be dismissed in default on 19.12.1992. Petitioner moved an application dated 15.5.1998 to recall the order dated 19.12.1992. Tehsildar vide order dated 24.10.2002 dismissed the recall application. Tehsildar while dismissing the recall application has recorded a finding that petitioner had withdrawn sale deed filed in the proceedings under his signature on 8.2.1993 and thus it cannot be said that he had no knowledge about the dismissal of the proceedings. A further finding has been recorded that delay has not been properly explained. Same findings have been confirmed by revisional court while dismissing the revision filed by petitioner.
In view of the findings of fact recorded by two courts below, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.
Even otherwise, writ petition challenging the mutation proceedings are normally not to be entertained in as much as proceedings are summary in nature and always subject to final adjudication of title by competent court on regular side. Petitioner has remedy of getting her title adjudicated by filing a suit on regular side, if so advised.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.