Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2408 (ALL)

Ram Janam v. Additional Commissioner IInd

2016-07-12

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Yadav, counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi. 2. A certiorari has also been sought for quashing the mutation proceedings initiated by the respondents 5 to 10 on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in their favour on 08.06.2011 by the respondent no. 4. Further a mandamus has been sought for keeping the proceedings of case no. 42/491 under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act in abeyance. 3. It appears that respondent no. 4 the recorded tenure holder executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents 5 to 10 after close of consolidation operations. The respondents 5 to 10 initiated proceedings for their mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed in their favour wherein the petitioner filed an application that since the dispute regarding title was pending between him and his brother, respondent no. 4 before the consolidation courts, the mutation proceedings were not liable to continue. 4. The trial court, namely, Tehsildar (Judicial) vide order dated 31.07.2012 abated the mutation case. 5. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal under Section 210 of the UP Land Revenue Act. 6. The SDO vide order dated 02.04.2014 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties and after affording them opportunity of adducing evidence. 7. The consequential revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2015. Hence this writ petition. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the dispute between him and his brother, respondent no. 4, the vendor of respondent nos. 5 to 10 is pending consideration before the consolidation courts, the mutation proceedings were not liable to continue and, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.05.2015 is liable to be set aside. 9. As already noted herein above, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the mutation case and an alternative prayer has also been made that the mutation case be kept in abeyance. 10. 9. As already noted herein above, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the mutation case and an alternative prayer has also been made that the mutation case be kept in abeyance. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, I do not find any substance in the writ petition. 11. Admittedly the mutation case has been initiated by respondent after the close of the consolidation operations by means of a notification under Section 52 of the Act. In my considered opinion, such a mutation proceeding can neither be ordered to abate nor can be ordered to remain in abeyance. 12. The provision for abatement of proceedings is contained in Section 5 (2) (a) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is clear from bare reading of this section that once a notification has been issued under Section 4 (2) of the Act, bringing a unit under consolidation operations, every proceeding for correction of records pending before any court or authority shall be abated after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Consolidation operation which are initiated by means of a notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act are closed by means of a notification under Section 52 of the Act. 13. As already noticed above, the sale deed dated 08.06.2015 which is the basis of claim of the respondents 5 to 10 has been admittedly executed after the close of consolidation operations. The purchaser, therefore, could not have invoked Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which deals with matters relating to changes and transactions affecting rights from interest recorded in the revised records. This section deals also with transfers made during the currency of consolidation operations. It is therefore clear that Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act alone could not have invoked by the purchaser for their mutation over land purchased by them. It is also not in dispute that the sale-deed on the basis whereof a mutation proceedings have been initiated was executed by a person recorded over the land sold. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 14. There is yet another reason why the petition merits dismissal. The trial court had abated the mutation proceedings. This order was set aside in appeal filed by the respondent no. 5. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 14. There is yet another reason why the petition merits dismissal. The trial court had abated the mutation proceedings. This order was set aside in appeal filed by the respondent no. 5. The appeal was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 02.04.2015. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 07.05.2015. Only the order dated 07.05.2015 is under challenge in the writ petition. The order of the SDO dated 02.04.2014 allowing the appeal of the respondent no. 5 is not under challenge in the writ petition. Even if the revisional order is set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 02.04.2014 shall still remained in existence. The writ petition, therefore, as framed is defective and no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner. 15. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.