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


Kharag Singh @ Kharag Jeet & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 51980 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16333 (19 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 No. 51980 of 2006

Kharag singh @ Kharag Jeet & Others...........Petitioners


State of U.P. & Others......Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Anoop Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (for short the ''Act'). On death of recorded tenure holder Babu Ram, the petitioners moved an application for mutation of their name on the basis of a unregistered will said to have been executed in their favour. The Tehsildar vide order dated 21.2.2004 allowed the same and directed the names of the petitioners to be mutated in place of deceased tenure holder. Subsequently, respondent no. 4 filed an application for recall of the said order claiming herself to be wife of deceased tenure holder on the ground that it was an ex parte order without any notice to her. Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 13.7.2004 allowed the same and recalled his earlier order dated 21.2.2004 and directed the case to be decided afresh after considering the objection of respondent no. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioners went up in revision. The revisional Court vide order dated 27.3.2006 dismissed the same.

By means of the impugned order, an ex parte order passed against respondent no. 4 has been recalled and the proceedings have been directed to be decided afresh considering her objection. I find no illegality in the said order.

It is well settled that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and there is always alternative remedy of adjudication of title by filing a suit on regular side. Equally well settled is the proposition that writ petition challenging the order passed in mutation proceeding is not to be normally entertained since the proceedings are summary in nature and subject to decision by court of competent jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court rendered 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 aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition accordingly fails, and is dismissed.



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.