Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Siddh Nath Pandey & Others v. Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow & Others - WRIT - C No. 14771 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 4704 (16 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No.28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14771 of 2006

Siddh Nath Pandey and others  vs.  Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow and others


Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is also one of those cases in which farmers are spending their time, money and energy on interim orders in mutation proceedings and revisions, appeals and writ petitions against such interim orders or absence thereof.  Even final orders passed in mutation proceedings by any court are subject to the result of the regular suit under Section - 229 B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.

The dispute relates to the agricultural land left behind by Badri Pandey.  Smt. Shiv Kumari daughter of Badri Pandey applied for mutation on the basis of succession.  She however, claimed that a Will had also been executed by her father in her favour.  On the other hand Smt. Vimla - respondent no.3 in this writ petition claimed that Badri Pandey had executed a Will in her favour.  Smt. Shiv Kumari has died and is survived by the petitioners.  Initially mutation order was passed in favour of Smt. Shiv Kumari. Thereafter Smt. Vimla filed application before Tehsildar.  Tehsildar stayed the operation of mutation order passed by him in favour of Smt. Shiv Kumari.  Against that stay order lot of litigation took place last of which is this writ petition (unless parties opt to go to the Supreme Court against this judgment).

As stated earlier no useful purpose will be served by encouraging the parties to spend their time, money and energy in proceedings which are not final in nature.  

Accordingly it is directed that either of the two parties are at liberty to file suit for declaration under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act alongwith such other reliefs which may be considered necessary.  As an interim measure it is directed that the names of both the persons i.e. Smt. Vimla and the present petitioners shall be recorded in the revenue records and both the sets of persons shall be liable to pay land revenue in equal share.  In the revenue records it must be indicated that names are being entered in pursuance of this judgment.  That position shall continue until in the regular suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act right of any of the parties is decided.

For a period of one year none of the parties shall alienate the land in dispute.

With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.