Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 277 (UTT)

Prabhu Avatar Singh v. Suresh Agrawal

2018-05-18

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : MANOJ K. TIWARI, J. 1. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, the same are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners claim to have purchased agricultural land situated in village Pipaliya Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar from Manveer Singh in the year 2001 and mutation of their names were also recorded in the revenue records in terms of Section 34/35 of Land Revenue Act, 1901. The vendor, Shri Manveer Singh, was declared as owner of the said land vide judgment dated 09.09.1996 in Suit No. 996 of 1995-96 under Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. Subsequently, Suresh Agarwal and Deepak Agarwal (respondent nos.1 & 2 herein) moved a restoration application on 04.01.2000 in the said suit by contending that they had purchased the land in question by a registered sale-deed dated 28.09.1983 from Brijpal Singh S/o Mangat Singh, and they were not heard while declaring Manveer Singh as owner of the said land. The said restoration application was dismissed on 02.05.2006. Consequently, respondent no. 1 & 2 filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, which was subsequently transferred to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar. 4. During pendency of the said proceedings involving title dispute in respect of the land in question Shri Suresh Agarwal and Shri Deepak Agarwal (respondent nos.1 & 2) moved application for mutation of their names in the revenue records under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, before the Consolidation Officer, Kichcha, which was registered as Suit No. 412 of 2012-2013. The said suit was ultimately dismissed on 16.08.2013 and against dismissal of the suit, respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed two separate appeals before Settlement Officer Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 11 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Both the appeals were transferred to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar, and were renumbered as Appeal No. 282 and 285 and were allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2018 and it was ordered that names of respondent nos.1 & 2 be mutated in the revenue records. 5. Both the appeals were transferred to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar, and were renumbered as Appeal No. 282 and 285 and were allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2018 and it was ordered that names of respondent nos.1 & 2 be mutated in the revenue records. 5. Since names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records in respect of land in question and the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 282 and 285 had directed for mutation of names of respondent nos.1 & 2, therefore, petitioners filed two Revisions, numbered as Revision Nos. 42 of 2018 and 43 of 2018, and also filed stay application with the said Revisions. 6. Learned Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar, vide order dated 22.03.2018 rejected the stay application filed by the petitioners with their revisions by holding that since by the impugned order the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, therefore, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioners. 7. In the present writ petition, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners stay applications have been dismissed on a wrong premise. According to him, petitioners were challenging the order whereby names of respondent nos. 1 & 2 were ordered to be mutated in the revenue records in place of the petitioners, therefore, the interest of the petitioners was going to be prejudicially affected and the learned Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar, erred in dismissing the stay application of the petitioners without appreciating the controversy involved in the matter. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar, to hear and decide Revision nos. 42 and 43 of 2017-18 independently without being influenced by any observation in this order. This Court hopes and expects that the revisions shall be decided as early as possible preferably within nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till decision in the said Revisions status quo shall be maintained as regards entries in Revenue Records qua the land in question. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.