High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Madhu Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 3255 of 2006  RD-AH 2278 (30 January 2006)
Civil Misc. W.P. No. 3255 of 2006
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The impugned order dated 30th July 2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 is misconceived. If a person has executed a sale deed in respect of property which does not belong to the vendor, the authority entitled to pass the order of mutation will examine the objections which are received after the advertisement of the mutation application and may refuse mutation. It may also be open to the real owner of the property sold to institute proceedings for injunction or declaration that the sale deed does not affect the property, which did not belong to the person executing the sale deed. Prima facie, it is not open to the respondent No. 3 to declare such sale deeds as void. It would not even be open to the Board of Revenue to declare such sale deeds as void. It may also be open to the State authorities to prosecute the persons executing such sale deeds. The impugned order dated 30.7.2005, therefore, can not be sustained for the above reasons.
Therefore, leaving it open for the question of title of persons executing the sale deeds mentioned in the impugned order dated 30.7.2005 to be agitated in appropriate proceedings as indicated above or other legally sustainable proceedings, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated 30.7.2005 and the consequent notice dated 8.8.2005, annexures No. 1 and 5 to this writ petition respectively.
Standing counsel may file a counter affidavit within a month.
Dated : January 30, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.