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


Jagannath v. Addl. Commissioner (Admin.), Basti Region, Basti & Others - WRIT - C No. 50490 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15940 (13 September 2006)


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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  50490 of 2006



Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Region,

Basti & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

The facts are that on death of the recorded tenure holder Jamuna Prasad, the name of contesting respondents no. 5 to 7 came to be mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 27.1.1998. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in dispute from respondents no. 5 to 7 and on the basis of the same he moved an application for mutation of his name. The Tehsildar vide order dated 24.4.1998 allowed the application. Aggrieved, respondent no. 4 filed a restoration application dated 16.10.1998 which was rejected on the ground of lahces. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no. 4 filed an appeal, which was allowed, and the case was remanded back to be decided afresh after notice and opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2006.

The respondent no. 4 claims mutation of her name as wife of deceased Jamuna Prasad. It was alleged that the name of the respondents no. 5 to 7 who are nephews was wrongly recorded and she was entitled to inherit the property.

The appellate court has remanded the case back to be decided afresh after notice and opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties which has been confirmed by the revisional court. Orders impugned in the writ petition are orders of remand and there is no scope for interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the dispute arises out of mutation proceedings and it is well settled that the writ petition challenging the mutation proceedings are not normally entertained as held by the division bench of this Court in the case of Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow and others, 2002(1), AWC-169 and Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 2002 (1) AWC 498.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no force in the writ petition and the same accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.



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.