High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Devendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 35801 of 2007  RD-AH 13623 (7 August 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35801 of 2005
State of U. P. and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. S. Shukla appearing for the contesting respondents no. 4 and 5.
This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.
Facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under.
One Sukhpal Singh son of Tarif Singh was tenure-holder of the land in dispute. Petitioner applied for mutation of his name on the basis of ''Will' dated 17.5.1989 alleged to have been executed by Sukhpal Singh the recorded tenure holder in his favour. The contesting respondents filed objection. Vide order dated 22.12.2005 Tehsildar allowed the application and directed mutation of his name over the land in dispute against which contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2006. The contesting respondents went up in revision before the Commissioner which was allowed vide order dated 29.5.2007. The petitioner went up in revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
Petitioner is claiming mutation of his name on the basis of 'Will' in his favour and the contesting respondents are claiming as heirs of deceased Sukhpal. Revisional Court finding that true copy of ''Will' produced was not admissible and the trial court as well as the appellate court have not discussed the statement of witnesses of ''Will' allowed the revision. Board of Revenue also came to the same finding and dismissed the revision of the petitioner.
In view of the findings recorded by revisional court as well as Board of Revenue, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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. Petitioners have remedy of getting their 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.
At the end, an apprehension has been expressed on behalf of petitioner that after mutation of the name, the respondents may transfer the land in dispute creating third party interest which will create further complication.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, for a period of four months from today, the respondents no. 4 and 5 are restrained from transferring or alienating the land in dispute in any manner and during this period the petitioner, if so advised, may file a suit and obtain suitable orders.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.