Smt Kulwant Kaur v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32466 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt Kulwant Kaur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhinav Ojha, learned standing counsel and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5-gaon sabha.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that khasra no.480, area 0.9510 hect. situated at Village Gajupura, Pargana Hastinapur, District Meerut was allotted in favour of one Jangir Singh, son of Daleep Singh for agricultural purpose. According to petitioner Jangir Singh, son of Daleep Singh had transferred the aforementioned khasra no.480 in favour of the petitioner's husband by way of registered sale deed dated 12.4.2007 and since the execution of sale deed dated 12.4.2007, petitioner's husband Nirmal Singh came in possession over the same. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed dated

12.4.2007, mutation proceeding was initiated on behalf of the petitioner's husband Nirmal Singh. During pendency of the proceeding, petitioner's husband Nirmal Singh expired. The contesting respondents have also initiated the proceeding for mutation on the basis of succession in respect to the holdings of deceased Jangir Singh.The Tehsildar (Judicial), Mawana, District Meerut vide order dated 30.10.2009 ordered to record the name of the contesting respondent in respect to the holding of Jangir Singh. Respondent no.7/Jasbeer Kaur claimed that sale deed has been executed in her favour on 8.7.2008 by successor of Jangir Singh accordingly two set of claim were setup before the Court under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 and the Tehsildar by order dated 13.10.2013 rejected the mutation application of petitioner filed on the basis of Sale-deed of 12.4.2007 and allowed the mutation application of contesting respondent no.7/Jasbeer Kaur filed on the basis of sale deed of 8.7.2009. Against the order dated

3.10.2013, an appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was decided vide order dated 20.7.2019, setting aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 3.10.2013 and remanded the matter back before the Tehsildar to pass fresh order, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. In pursuance of the appellate order dated 20.7.2019, the Tehsildar has passed fresh order dated 21.4.2022, allowing the claim of mutation set up by contesting respondent and rejecting the claim of the petitioner as held by earlier order of Tehsildar dated

3.10.2013. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar dated

21.4.2022 by way of appeal which was dismissed vide order dated

22.8.2023. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the impugned order dated 22.8.2023, passed by the S.D.O. in appeal and order dated 21.4.2022, passed by the Tehsildar in Mutation Case No.5248.

¶3Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tehsildar has illegally passed the order for recording the name of the contesting respondent, without considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submitted that the Tehsildar has failed to consider that the recorded tenure holder has already executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's husband, as such, the claim set up by the contesting respondent, cannot be accepted. He also submitted that the civil suit is pending between the petitioner and the contesting respondent in respect to the property in dispute, as such, the mutation order passed by the Tehsildar is illegal. He also submitted that the sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of the contesting respondent cannot be relied upon in view of the earlier sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the claim of the petitioner should be examined afresh in accordance with law.

¶4On the other hand learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in the summary proceeding on the basis of sale deed executed in favour of the contesting respondent, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that the petitioner has stated in paragraph no.19 of the writ petition that civil suit is pending between the petitioner and the contesting respondent in which Amin's report has already been submitted, as such petitioner should avail the proper remedy in the pending suit rather the writ petition before this Court, challenging the impugned orders passed in the summary proceeding. They submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶6There is no dispute about the fact that the Tehsildar, after considering each and every aspect of the case, has maintained the earlier order dated

3.10.2013, passed on the basis of the sale deed in favour of the contesting respondent and the case of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed dated 12.4.2007 was rejected as vendor was not found alive on 12.4.2007.

¶7The relevant portion of the finding of fact recorded by the Tehsildar dated

21.4.2022 are as follows:- आददेश प्ቔक न्ययाययालययः तहससीलदयार, न्ययाययक मण्डल-मदेरठ, जनपद-मदेरठ, तहससील-मवयानया वयाद ससंख्यया- /1001/2007-2008 RST कप्ययटरसीककतवयाद ससंख्यया- 201911520305248 T यनमरल सससंह बनम जसंगसीर सससंह अन्तगरत धयारया-34, असधयनयमयः- उ०्ቚ० भय०-रयाजस्व असधयनयम,1901 यनररय ममनदे उभय पकኘ᭎ कदे यवदयान असधवकयागर ककी बहस ससुनसी गई तथया प्ቔयावलसी पर उपलब्ध समस्त सयाቌኚयኘ᭎ आयद कया भलसी-भयासंयत पररशसीलन यकयया गयया सजसकदे उपरयान्त मम इस यनष्करर पर पहहसंचया हहसं यक वयाद प्ቔयावलसी मम कदेतसी जसवसीर ककौर ककी ओर सदे जज तथ्य/सयाቌኚय ्ቚस्तसुत यकयदे गयदे हम वदे पजररसीय हजनदे कदे कयारर स्वसीकयार यकयदे जयानदे यजग्य हम, जबयक कसुलवन्त ककौर कदे पयत यनमरल सससंह कदे पक मम यनष्पयायदत कसथत यवकय प्ቔ ससंयदग्ध ्ቚतसीत हजतया हहै जज स्वसीकयार यकयदे जयानदे यजग्य नहीሻ हहै। जबयक जसवसीर ककौर कदे पक मम यनष्पयायदत यवकय प्ቔ यदनयासंक 08.07.2009 कदे आधयार पर ्ቚस्तसुत दया०-खया० ककी ररपजटर स्वसीकयार यकयदे जयानदे यजग्य हहै। इससलए कसुलवन्त ककौर कदे पक मम ्ቚस्तसुत नयामयान्तरर ररपजटर यनमरल सससंह बनयाम जगसीर सससंह खयाररज ककी जयातसी हहै। तथया इनकदे दयारया ्ቚस्तसुत सभसी आपसቈኌययासं भसी खयाररज ककी जयातसी हहै। तथया ्ቚयाथरनया प्ቔ यदनयासंक

12.04.2022 तथया 20.04.2022 भसी पजररसीय न हजनदे कदे कयारर यनरस्त यकयदे जयातदे हम। तथया जसवसीर ककौर कदे यवरु्ቍ पयाररत एक पकसीय आददेश यदनयासंक

03.03.2022 भसी खयाररज यकयया जयातया हहै। तथया वयाद मम यनम्नवत आददेश पयाररत यकयया जयातया हहै- आददेश गयाम गजयपसुरया पर० हसस्तनयापसुर तह० मवयानया ककी वतरमयान खतकौनसी ककी खयातया ससं० 00076 ककी गयाटया ससंख्यया 480 रकबया 0.9510 हदे० ल० 16.80 रू० कदे सम्पयरर असंश पर पयाररत पयवर नयामयान्तरर कदे आददेश यद० 03.10.2013 ककी पसुयቖኌ कर जयातसी हहै। तथया इस आददेश कदे कम मम, कदेतसी जसवसीर ककौर पत्नसी स्व० बलददेव सससंह यन० आर-154,गदेटर कहैलयाश, पयाटर-1 नई यदलसी कया नयाम जज खतकौनसी कदे कयालम-2 मम दजर हहै, यथयावत रखया जयातया हहै। प्ቔयावलसी वयाद परवयानया अमल दरयामद जयारसी हजकर दया० द० हज। यदनयासंक 21.04.2022 रयाम चन्द तहससीलदयार न्ययाययक तह० मवयानया

21.04.22

¶8The finding of fact recorded by the Tehsildar was maintained in appeal by the S.D.O. vide order dated 22.8.2023.

¶9It is also material that petitioner has stated in paragraph no.19 of the writ petition that civil suit between the petitioner and the contesting respondent are pending in the civil court in respect to the property in dispute although nature of suit has not been mentioned in Paragraph No.19 of the writ petition.

¶10In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tehsildar as well as the pendency of the civil suit between the parties in respect to the property in dispute, no interference is required in the matter.

¶11The writ petition is dismissed.

¶12Needless to say, the order passed in the mutation proceeding, shall not come in the way of the petitioner to establish her claim in accordance with law before the regular court. Order Date :- 26.10.2023 C.Prakash/RPD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad