Mukarram Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39220 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mukarram Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akash Khare,Shahrukh,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Sri Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akash Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent no.5, who are brother and sister, are the children of one Dilshad Ali. Dilshad Ali alleged to had executed a registered will deed on 28.7.2008 in favour of respondent no.5 in respect to plot no.1619, area 0.6100 hect. of khata no.257, situated in village Garh Bangar, Tehsil Garh Mukteshwar, District Hapur. Dilshad Ali expired, accordingly, respondent no.5 applied for mutation on the basis of will deed dated 28.7.2008, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Tehsildar vide order dated 4.7.2009 allowed the mutation application filed by respondent no.5 but on the recall application of the petitioner, order dated 4.7.2009 has been recalled vide order dated 22.9.2016 and mutation case has been restored for fresh decision in accordance with law. Respondent no.5 filed an application against the order dated 22.9.2016. Tehsildar vide order dated 18.4.2018 allowed the application filed on behalf of respondent no.5, setting aside the order dated 22.9.2016 and affirmed the order of mutation dated 4.7.2009. Petitioner challenged the order dated

18.4.2018 in revision before respondent no.2 which was allowed vide order dated 24.4.2019, setting aside the order dated 18.4.2018 and matter was remanded back before respondent no.3/Tehsildar to decide the mutation case in the light of direction/observation made in the revisional order. Respondent no.3-Tehsildar vide order dated 4.8.2021 allowed the mutation of respondent no.5 in place of deceased Dilshad Ali. Revision filed by petitioner against the order dated 4.8.2021 has been also dismissed by respondent no.2 vide order dated 16.10.2023, hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2023, passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No.1412/2021 (Computerized Case No.C202111000001412) (Mukarram Ali vs. Noor Jahan and Others) as well as the order dated

4.8.2021 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.RST/00486/2018 (Computer Case No.T201811730500486) (Noor Jahan vs. Dilshad Ali), (Annexure Nos. 7 & 10 respectively to the writ petition)."

¶3Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tehsildar has illegally allowed the mutation application in favour of respondent no.5, on the basis of the alleged will deed dated 28.7.2008 and the case of the petitioner is founded on the basis of succession which has not been considered in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed without considering the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that proper opportunity for cross-examination in respect to will deed in question has not been afforded to the petitioner inspite of the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the revisional court while remanding the matter back before the Tehsildar as such impugned orders be set aside and mutation case be decided afresh in the light of earlier revisional order dated 24.4.2019.

¶4Sri Akash Khare, learned counsel for private respondent no.5 submitted that the writ petition arises out of the mutation proceeding, as such, the same is not maintainable. It is further submitted that concurrent finding has been recorded by the court for recording the name of the respondent no.5 on the basis of will deed dated 28.7.2008 which has not been cancelled till date by any court of law. He further submitted that Civil Suit No.89/2016, although has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for declaration in respect to the will deed dated 28.7.2008 is pending before the Civil Court. He further placed the true copy of the plaint of Suit No.89 of 2016 which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted that no proper affidavit has been filed in support of the instant petition, as such, the same 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 has passed an order for mutation in favour of respondent no.5 on the basis of will deed alleged to be executed on 28.7.2008. There is also no dispute about the fact that the order of mutation passed in favour of respondent no.5 has been maintained in appeal and revision. There is also no dispute about the fact that Civil Suit No.89/2016 in respect to the will deed in question is pending before Civil Court.

¶7In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, the finding recorded by the Tehsildar will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "आददेश प्ቔक न् यायालयः‌तहसीलदार मण् डलः‌मेरठ‌जनपदः‌हापुड,oतहसीलः‌गढ़ ‌मुके श् वर वाद‌संख् याः‌RST/00486/2018 कं प् यूटरीकृ त‌वाद‌संख् याः‌T201811730500486 नरू ‌जहां‌बनाम‌वदलशाद‌अली अंतगरत‌धाराः‌34/35,oअजधवनयमः‌उ्ቈ र‌पቚ देश‌राजस् व‌संवहता-2006 नकल‌वनणरय‌वदनांक‌04.08.2021 पतቔ ावली‌पेश‌हहई।‌पቚ स् तुत‌वाद‌न् यायालय‌अपर‌आयकु ‌मेरठ‌मण् डल‌मेरठ‌के ‌आदेश‌वदनांक

24.04.2019oके ‌अनुपालन‌मे‌वनदरशानुसार‌वनणरኍ त‌वकये‌जाने‌हेतु‌वदनांक‌21.08.2019oको‌पेश‌हहई। पतቔ ावली‌का‌ववजधवत‌अवलोकन‌वकया‌गया।‌पतቔ ावली‌के ‌अवलोकन‌से‌वववदत‌ह‌ै वक‌पቚ स् तुत‌वाद ेन् यायाल‌अपर‌आयकु ‌मेरठ‌मण् डल‌मेरठ‌के ‌आदेश‌वदनांक‌ 24.04.2019oके ‌अनुपालन‌म‌पुनः योजजत‌वकया‌गया।‌न् यायालय‌अपर‌अयकु ‌मेरठ‌मण् डल‌मेरठ‌के ‌दारा‌वनदरवशत‌वकया‌गया‌ह‌ै वक उभय‌पकቌ ‌को‌समुवचि त‌साकኚ य‌एवं‌सुनवाई‌का‌अवसर‌पቚ दान‌करते‌हहए‌पुनः‌वाद‌का‌वनस् तारण गुणदोष‌पर‌कर।े ‌वदनांक ‌21.01.2021 oको‌उभय‌पकቌ ‌को‌साकኚ य‌अवसर‌वदया‌गया।‌वादी‌के अजधवका‌दारा‌वदनांक ‌ 03.02.2021 oको‌गवाहोሻ ‌के ‌शपथ‌पतቔ ‌दाजखि ल‌वकये‌गये।‌वदनांक

05.03.2021oको‌वादी‌दारा‌अपने‌साकኚ य‌पूणर‌बताये‌गये।‌वदनांक‌ 26.07.2021oको‌पቚ वतवादी‌के साकኚ य‌हेतु‌अंवतम‌अवसर‌पቚ दान‌वकया‌गया।‌पቚ वतवादी‌न‌तो‌न् यायालय‌मे‌उपबस् थत‌हहआ‌और‌न‌ही कोई‌साकኚ य‌पቚ स् तुत‌वकया। "पतቔ ावली‌पर‌उपलब् ध‌साक् योሻ ‌के ‌अवलोकन‌से‌स् पषቖ ‌ह‌ै वक‌पቚ स् तुत‌वाद‌पंजीकृ त‌वसीयत‌वदनांक

28.07.2008eपर‌आधाररत‌ह।ै ‌जजसकी‌पृवषቖ ‌वसीयत‌के ‌हाजसये‌गवाहोሻ ‌ने‌अपने‌शपथ‌पतቔ ‌मे‌की‌ह।ै पቚ स् तुत‌वसीयत‌एक‌पंजीकृ त‌दस् तावेज‌है,eजो‌वकसी‌भी‌न् यायालय‌से‌वनरस् त‌नहीሻ ‌ह।ै ‌वतरमान‌मे वैध‌ह।ै ‌पजं ीकृ त‌वसीयत‌एक‌वधै ‌दस् तावेज‌होने‌के ‌कारण‌व‌गवाहोሻ ‌दारा‌वसीयत‌को‌पुषቖ ‌वकये‌जाने के ‌कारण‌पतቔ ावली‌पर‌नामान् तरण‌आदेश‌पाररत‌वकये‌जाने‌मे‌कोई‌ववजधक‌बाधा‌नहीሻ ‌ह।ै ‌पतቔ ावली पर‌वनम् न‌आदेश‌पाररत‌वकया‌जाता‌ह।ै ‌ आदेश अतः‌आदेश‌हहआ‌वक‌भूवम‌बस् थत‌गाम‌गढ़ ‌बांगर‌के ‌खि ाता‌सं०‌ 890eखि सरा‌सं०‌1619eरकबा

0.6100eह०ै ‌मा०‌80.0eरू ०‌से‌मृतक‌वदलशाद‌अली‌पुतቔ ‌ममु ताज‌अली‌वनवासी‌मौ०‌चि ौधररयान गढ़ मुके श् वर‌का‌नाम‌खि ाररज‌करके ‌उसके ‌स् थान‌पर‌शीमवत‌नरू जहां‌बेगम‌पत् नी‌शाहनवाज‌खि ां दनवयाससी ममौजपपुर ददलसी कया नयाम कया बतमौर पसंजसीककत वससीयत ददनयासंक 28.07.2008 बतमौर ससं्ቅमरसीय भयदमधर दजर हकोवम। अमलदरयामद बयाद प्ቔयावलसी दयाधखिल दफ्तर हकोवदे। तहससीलदयार गढ़मपुकदेश्वर

04.08.2021"

¶8Considering the finding recorded by the Tehsildar to the effect that the registered will deed has been executed by the recorded tenure holder in favour of respondent no.5, which has not been cancelled by any court of law till date, as well as in view of the pendency of the Civil Suit No.89 of 2016 in respect to the will deed in question at the instance of the petitioner himself, no interference is required in the matter.

¶9The writ petition is dismissed.

¶10Needless to say that the order passed in the mutation proceeding shall not come in the way of the petitioner to establish his claim in the pending suit before civil court in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.12.2023 C.Prakash High Court of Judicature at Allahabad