Jitendra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39289 of 2023 Petitioner :- Jitendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Rahul Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.2.2023 passed be respondent no.2, order dated 11.9.2020 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 18.10.2017 passed by respondent no.2.

(ii) Issue such other and further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case protecting the interest of the petitioners."

¶2Brief facts of the case are that Gajendra Kumar, Rajendra Kumar sons of Vijai Pal Sharma and Smt. Chanrakanta wife of Vijai Pal Sharma executed a registered sale deed in respect of their entire share on 7.11.2003 with regard to plot No. 156 area 0.519 hectare in favour of respondent nos. 5 to

¶7Respondent nos. 5 to 7 applied for mutation on the basis of sale deed executed on 7.11.2003 which was allowed on 10.2.2004. Petitioner's father filed application against the order dated 10.2.2004 passed in the mutation case filed by respondent nos. 5 to 7. Tehsildar vide subsequent order dated

18.10.2017 maintained the earlier order dated 10.2.2004. Appeal filed by petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2017 was dismissed by Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 11.9.2020. Revision filed by petitioner against the appellate order dated 11.9.2020 has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.2.2023 hence this writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 18.10.2017, 11.9.2020 and 14.2.2023 passed in the summary proceeding for mutation.

¶3Petitioner has pleaded in the instant petition that sale deed was executed against the provision of law, as such, mutation order passed by the Tehsildar was illegal. It is further mentioned in the writ petition that petitioner challenged the order passed by Tehsildar in appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but the same has been dismissed in arbitrary manner and the revision filed against the appeallate order has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.2.2023 without considering the case of the petitioner. The ground taken in the writ petition is that transfer was made in contravention of the provision contained under Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, as such, the transaction was void in view of the provisions contained under Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

¶4On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that writ petition arises out of mutation proceeding which are summary in nature, as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶5I have considered the averment made in the writ petition as well as the document annexed along with the writ petition.

¶6There is no dispute about the fact that Tehsildar has passed the mutation order under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 7 on the basis of registered sale deed executed on

7.11.2003. There is also no dispute about the fact that order of Tehsildar has been maintained in appeal and revision.

¶7In order to appreciate the controversy, the finding of fact recorded by Tehsildar while passing the order dated 18.10.2017 will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "

पकककररककववदकनअधधवककओओककतकरपपररससननगयनबहसएवओधलधखतबहसककअवललकन

वकयकगयक।पतकवलनककअवललकनसकवववदतहहवकखकतकसओ०210

खसरकसओ०256

रकवक0.865

ककबकदरअपनकसमपपररवहससक0.519

हक०ककववकयगजकनदकसमकरवरकजकनदकसमकरपसतगर

ववजयपकलशमकरवचनदककनतकपतननसव०ववजयपकलशमकरवनवकसनगकमभकईपसरबहमनकनदकरकककतक

ससभकषचनदशमकर1/2

भकगवरकजकशकसमकरशमकर1/4

भकगवनकनकचनदशमकर1/4

भकगपसतगर

खचकडकमलशमकरवनवकसनभकईपसरबहमनकनककपकमकवदनकओक7.11.03

कलवकयकगयकहह।आपधतकतकर

सहखकतकदकरहहधजसककमसखयउदकशयववववधपकररनकपतरककमकधयमसकवकदकललममबतरखनकककहह।

ववककतकगजकनदकसमकरआवददकरकअपनकबकदरभकगककववकयवकयकगयकहह।आपधतकतकरककवहससक

परकलईपवतकपलपभकवनहनहह।औरनहनववकयपतवदनकओक7.11.2003

सकवकसनसकम

नयकयकलयदकरकवनषपभकवनघलवषतवकयकगयकहह।बहनकमकवदनकओक7.11.2003

अपनकपभकवममहह

धजसककआधकरपरवदनकओक10.2.04

कलनकमकनतररककआदकशपकररतकरवदयकगयकरक।नमकनतररकक

पवकयकममबहनकमकसवरचचदसतकवकजहह।ऐसनमसरवतममबहनकमकवदनकओक7.11.2003

ककआधकरपर

पकररतआदकशवदनकओक10.2.04

बहकलवकयकजकनकयलगयहह। आदकश

भपवमखकतकसओ०210

खसरकसओ०256

रकवक0.865

ककबकदरअपनकसमपपररवहससक0.519 हक०

परनकमकनतररककपपवरपकररतआदकशवदनकओक10.2.04

ककपसवषककजकतनहह।यवदवकदमककलईसरगन

आदकशहहतलवनरसतसमझकजकय।तदनसकरपरवकनकअमलदरकमदवनगरतहल।पतकवलनवकदपपवतर

दकधखलदफतरहल।"

¶8The perusal of the finding of fact reveals that sale deed was executed on

7.11.2023 in accordance with law and the mutation order was accordingly passed on 10.2.2004 on the basis of sale deed executed on 7.11.2003 which has not been cancelled by any Court of law. The order passed by Tehsildar was maintained in appeal and revision in accordance with law.

¶9Considering the finding of fact recorded by the Tehsildar as maintained in appeal and revision, no interference is required. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 Vandana Y. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad