Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 585 (ALL)

Munni Devi v. State of U. P.

2015-03-26

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sisodia learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as and has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 11.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in Revision No. 86/2012-13, order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 and order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the respondent No. 4. 2. Facts of the case briefly state that the land in question was recorded in the name of one Ram Chandra son of Ganga Ram. The petitioner Munni Devi claims on the basis of a sale-deed executed in her favour on 6.4.1978. Yet another sale-deed is said to have been executed by Ram Chandra on 24.4.1983 in favour of one Nattho Devi. 3. It further appears that the petitioner and Nattho Devi were mutated over the land purchased by them on the basis of sale-deeds in their favour. Prior to the execution of the aforesaid sale-deeds the said Ram Chandra executed an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent No. 5, Natthu Singh. This agreement to sell was executed on 19.8.1977 and on its basis a suit for specific performance was filed by Natthu Singh. This suit was decreed on 4.2.1981 and in pursuance of the aforesaid decree a sale-deed was executed in favour of Natthu Singh on 22.5.1984. 4. On the basis of decree in the suit for specific performance and the consequential sale-deed in his favour, Natthu Singh on 1.2.2001 made an application for setting aside the orders for mutation passed in favour of the petitioner and Natthu Singh. This application was allowed. The mutation order in favour of the petitioner and Natthu Singh was set aside and both were granted time to file objections to which the petitioner had filed. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor by the order dated 10.12.2012 after considering the objections and after hearing the parties passed an order directing the name of Natthu Singh to be recorded over the land in question. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed on 16.12.2013 and the order was affirmed by the Revisional Court, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad by his order dated 11.4.2014. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed on 16.12.2013 and the order was affirmed by the Revisional Court, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad by his order dated 11.4.2014. Hence, this writ petition challenging the orders dated 10.12.2012, 16.12.2013 and 14.4.2014. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior to the application filed by the contesting respondent on 1.2.2001 he had applied for mutation which application was rejected as also the consequential appeal and revision. Since mutation application was rejected finally, orders to the contrary are illegal and are liable to be set aside. 6. The second submission made is that orders have been passed as regards Plot No. 42. During consolidation operation Plot No. 42 had been divided in two parts i.e. Plot No. 42-A and Plot No. 42-B. Plot No. 42-A was recorded in the name of the petitioner Munni Devi while Plot No. 42-B was recorded in the name of Natthu Singh. It is therefore, contended that Plot No. 42 was not in existence and therefore the mutation order is patently illegal. 7. When this matter came before the Court on 1.12.2014 an order was passed that Tehsildar in the impugned order has recorded that the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, which is the basis of his claim has been held to be void upto the High Court stage. Since this order was not on record learned Counsel for the petitioner was granted time to file the same. This order has not been filed on record. When the matter was taken up subsequently, it was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order which was required to be filed had been passed in Writ Petition No. 32331 of 2002. Under the circumstance, the instant writ petition was directed to come up along with the record of the aforesaid writ petition. The office has placed the record of the said writ petition and I have perused the same. 8. Writ Petition No. 32331 of 2002 is Rent Control Writ of District Lalitpur. The same has been dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2012. It is therefore clear that Writ Petition No. 32331 of 2002 has absolutely no concern with the dispute involved in the instant writ petition. 9. 8. Writ Petition No. 32331 of 2002 is Rent Control Writ of District Lalitpur. The same has been dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2012. It is therefore clear that Writ Petition No. 32331 of 2002 has absolutely no concern with the dispute involved in the instant writ petition. 9. Along with the writ petition the petitioner has filed a copy of judgment dated 22.9.2008 passed in Original Suit No. 33 of 1997. This suit was filed by the petitioner and one Hem Chand who happens the husband of Nattho Devi. This was a suit for injunction wherein the respondent No. 5 Natthu Singh is arrayed as a defendant. 10. The judgment dated 22.9.2008 indicates that the suit was decreed and the respondent No. 5 in the instant writ petition, the defendant in the suit was injected from dispossessing the plaintiffs except in accordance with law. Even this judgment is of no help to the petitioner. No question of dispossession is involved in the instant writ petition. The only controversy to be decided is, as to who is to be mutated over the land in question. 11. It is further evident from the material available on record that the impugned orders have been passed in favour of the respondent No. 5 relying upon the fact that a suit for specific performance filed by him has been decreed and in pursuance of the said decree a sale-deed has been executed in his favour. This sale-deed is of Plot No. 42 which as on date stands sub-divided into Plot No. 42-A and Plot No. 42-B. It is therefore clear that after having executed agreement to sell in favour of respondent No. 5, the owner of Plot No. 42 executed two separate sale-deeds of two separate portions of Plot No. 42 in favour of the petitioner and Nattho Devi and it is on the basis of these two sale-deeds that two separate plot numbers namely 42-A and 42-B have been entered in the revenue records. 12. It is therefore established on record that Plot Nos. 42-A and 42-B consists of the land comprised in Plot No. 42. Even the Courts below have recorded that there is no material on record to show that any order, judgment or decree setting aside the decree in favour of respondent No. 5 exists. 12. It is therefore established on record that Plot Nos. 42-A and 42-B consists of the land comprised in Plot No. 42. Even the Courts below have recorded that there is no material on record to show that any order, judgment or decree setting aside the decree in favour of respondent No. 5 exists. The judgment and decree in favour of respondent No. 5 has been passed in a regular suit which is therefore binding upon the mutation course. The mutation course having orders for mutating the respondent No. 5 relying upon the aforesaid judgment and degree in his favour, the orders impugned cannot be faulted with. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits and is dismissed.