Dinesh Kumar v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru Judicial Member and Others

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 992 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru Judicial Member And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajaiy Kumar Mishra,Kapil Dev Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent(s) is dispensed with. By means of the present petition, petitioner has assailed the orders dated 14.03.2023 and 14.08.2019 passed by the opposite party No.1-Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P. and opposite party No.2-Tehsildar, Gola Gokaran Nath, District-Kheri, respectively. Vide order dated 14.08.2019 the opposite party No.2 decided the mutation case, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record. The order dated 14.08.2019 reflects that an Advocate engaged by the petitioner was heard by the opposite party No.2 and another Advocate sought time to file some evidence, however, he was not present in the Court, at relevant time and accordingly, revenue court of opposite party No.2 proceeded to decide the case on merits and after, considering the sale deed as also report regarding possession of Lekhpal, passed the order dated 14.08.2019. The fact remains that before the opposite party No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and placed the case of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.08.2019 reads as under:- "वादी के विव्ቛान अधि व्ሹा ्ቛारा लिलित बहस दालि की गयी आपलि कता के विव्ቛान अधि व्ሹा ्ቛारा मौलिक बहस ्ቚस्तुत की गयी। तत्प्ቐात आपलि कत& के दूसरे आधि व्ሹा ्ቛारा एक्ቚ ा्ቕ नाप्ቔ साቌኚय का मौका विदये जाने के सम्बं में ्ቚस्तुत विकया गया। ेविकन ्ቛारा न्यायाय में उपቝኌस््ቕत न होने के कारण उनके विवरु्ቍ एकप्ቌीय काया वही की गयी। प्ቔावी में सं्ሿ उ्ቍरण तौनी से स्प्ቖ है विक विव्ቅीत भूविम विव्ቅेता के नाम दज

है। जिजसे विव्ቅय करने का पूण अधि कार ्ቚा्቎ है। विव्ቅीत भूविम पर ्ቅेता का कब्जा है जैसा की ेपा की आख्या से स्प्ቖ होता है। ार34 एक सरसरी ्ቚवि्ቅया है जिजसमें स्वत्व का नहीं बቝኌBक की मागुजारी का विनर ा ण विकया जाता है। यविद सीविव न्यायाय से विव्ቅीत गाटा के सम्बं में कोई आदेश पारिरत विकया जाता है। तो इस न्यायाय पर भी ्ቚभावी होगा आपलि कता की आपलि बहीन एवं विनरा ार है जो विनरस्त विकये जाने योग्य है जो विक विनरस्त की जाती है। त्ቕा वादी के प्ቌ में नमान्तरण विकया जाना उधिIत ्ቚतीत होता है।" After the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2019, quoted above, an application for restoration dated 06.09.2019 was preferred by the petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated

29.10.2020 by the opposite party No.2. Challenging the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.3-Salik Ram preferred the revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), registered as Case No.REV/1616/2020/Lakhimpur Kheri, Computerized Case No.R20201043001616, before the opposite party No.1 and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2023 after taking note of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard by opposite party No.2 and thereafter, the opposite party No.2 passed the order dated 14.08.2019. It appears that considering the settled view that final order on merits passed after hearing the parties cannot be recalled, the opposite party No.1 passed the order dated

14.03.2023. The revisional Court also observed that the petitioner is having remedy to file an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court for declaration of sale deed executed by him in favour of opposite party No.4, as null and void. Considering the aforesaid as also that by means of the present petition, petitioner challenges the order(s) passed in the mutation proceedings and the fact that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes as also that petitioner is having remedy to file an appeal under Section 35(2) of Code of 2006, this Court is not inclined to entertain present petition. It is accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach appellate authority for redressal of his grievance. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 Vinay/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench