Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2955 (ALL)

Ram Bahadur v. Nayab Tehsildar and Another

2012-12-19

ANIL KUMAR

body2012
Anil Kumar, J.— Heard Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. Admittedly, in the present case, the controversy relates to the land situated in village Mirzapur Tappa, RAipura, Pargana Salempur kajhauli, Tehsil Barhez, Deoria in respect to the said land initially an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act has been moved to which one Sri Jang Bahadur has filed his objection, by an order dated 16.12.1999, Naib Tehsildar has rejected the petitioner's application for mutation. 3. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, and teh matter was remanded back to Tehsildar to decided afresh. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar again rejected the mutation application on 29.09.2001. Aggrieved by the said fact, again the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar dated 29.09.2001 has been set aside by an order dated 05.02.2002 and the matter was remanded to the trial court by order dated 05.10.2002, the said order has been challenged by the contesting respondent by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, allowed by an order dated 25.03.2010. 4. Order dated 25.03.2010, has been challenged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, in revision No. 1366/46/133/D-2002 (Umesh Vs. Ram Bahadur & others), dismissed by order dated 10.07.2012,hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. It is settled proposition of law that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act does not decide the right and title of the parties. The object of mutation proceedings is as to form whom the State has to recover the land revenue. It becomes immediately imperative to have got the name of some successor mutated in place of the deceased so that the land revenue can be recovered from him. The scope of these proceedings are not that any right or title of any body is sought to be decided. 7. It becomes immediately imperative to have got the name of some successor mutated in place of the deceased so that the land revenue can be recovered from him. The scope of these proceedings are not that any right or title of any body is sought to be decided. 7. Further, it is settled view of this Court that it should not interfere with the order issued by the authorities while deciding the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, as in the said proceedings the issue only in respect to record the name of tenure holder in the revenue record is under consideration. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title of property in question and his right is to be established as per the procedure provided under law (See Jaipal Vs.Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others, 1956 ALJ 807, Smt. Lakhpati and another Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1984 RD 378, State of U.P. through Collector, Agra Vs. Board of Revenue at Lucknow and others, 1993 RD, 206, Shiv Raj Gupta Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknokw and others, 1989(2) AWC 947 , Pooran Singh Vs. Baord of Revenue and others, 2004(1) AWC 853 and Ram Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others, 2003 (1) AWC 505 ). 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 9. However, as prayed, the petitioners, if so advised, they may approach before appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances which he has raised in the present writ petition, may file regular suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and if the same is done, the matter should be decided on merit. _____________