Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1584 (ALL)

Tapeshwari v. D. D. C.

2016-04-27

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court raising a grievance that by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 04.8.2004, the names of Vijay Bahadur, Amar Bahadur and Ajay Bahadur have been mutated in the revenue records on the basis of succession deleting the names of Ganesh, Ram Prasad and Musafir who were the original tenure holders. After the mutation, the names of Vijay Bahadur, Amar Bahadur and Ajay Bahadur have been entered into the records, they executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.7.2012. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records on 31.1.2014. 2. It is submitted that one Ramayan challenged the order of earlier mutation dated 04.8.2004 without any notice to the petitioner and the earlier order of mutation was quashed by the order dated 21.7.2015 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was admitted on 21.8.2015, but during the pendency of the revision it appears that the respondent no.4 filed an application under 109-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rule, 1954 and a direction has been issued to mutate his name in the revenue records. 3. Shri Rajesh Yadav learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Vinay Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, reported in 2013 (121) R.D. 569 wherein this Court has held that during the pendency of restoration application or a revision the order of mutation under Rule 109-A of the Rules, 1954 should be kept in abeyance till the decision is taken. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the judgment relied upon by Shri Rajesh Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to issue similar direction as has been issued in the case of Vinay Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, that till the revision of the petitioner is decided the order passed under Rule 109-A shall be kept in abeyance. It is further directed that the revision filed by the petitioner be considered and decided expeditiously without allowing unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided there is no other legal impediment in the same or no interim order is operating against the disposal of the same. It is further directed that the revision filed by the petitioner be considered and decided expeditiously without allowing unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided there is no other legal impediment in the same or no interim order is operating against the disposal of the same. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.