Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 892 (ALL)

MANI SHANKAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-04-12

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Sri Lakshmi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amresh Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent-Gram Sabha and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 6th October, 2017 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in revision no. 55 of 2011-2012 (Manishanker vs. Prabhawati & Others) under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act and the order dated 7th April, 2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Puranpur in Appeal No.13 of 2011-2012 (Manishanker vs. Prabhawati & Others) under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act as well as the order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Nayab Tehsildar (Dakshin) Puranpur, District in Suit No. 03 of 2011-2012 (Mani Shaker vs. Mewa Lal) under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had three sons, one Mewa Lal, Chhote Lal and the petitioner himself, they were resident of village-Arjun Ateru, Thesil-Kunda, District Pratapgarh. Mewa Lal was settled at village Ramnagar Colony Paragana and Tehsil Puranpur, District Pilibhit along with the petitioner. Mewa Lal had received Araji No. 240 area 1.3480 hectares under the Government Grant situated in the aforesaid village Ramnagar Colony. At the relevant time, the petitioner was minor and lived with Mewa Lal at the said place and completed his education there-from. Mewa Lal was married with a lady but she left him after one year and thereafter she married to another person, while Mewa Lal did not re-marry and expired issueless. He was lived with the petitioner along with his family till his death. 4. Therefore, Petitioner is only legal heir of all the properties (movable and immovable properties) of Mewa Lal. It is the further case of the petitioner that after death of Mewa Lal, respondent no.6 Prabhawati Devi met area Lekhpal of Arjun Ateru, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh and with his collusion the name of respondent no.5 has been mutated under Section 11 Pa Ka of the Act on 21st January, 2011 qua the properties of Mewa Lal situate in village Ateru. On coming to know, the petitioner moved objection before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh on 30th March, 2011 under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which was registered as Suit No. 114 (Mani Shankar vs. Mewal Lal), which is still pending. 5. Thereafter being the only legal heir of Mewa Lal petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 13th May, 2010 before the Tehsildar Puranpur, District Pilibhit, which is registered as Suit No. 3 of 2011-2012 (Mani Shankar vs. Mewa Lal) for mutation qua the properties of Mewa Lal. The Naib Tehsildar, Puranpur, District Pilibhit vide ex parte order dated 13th January, 2012 has rejected the suit of the petitioner after recording that qua properties of Mewa Lal situate in District Pratapgarh, the name of Prabhawati Devi respondent no.5 had already been mutated. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal No. 13 of 2012-2012 under Section 2010 of the Land Revenue Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Puranpur, District Pilibhit. The appeal has also been rejected by the S.D.O. Puranpur vide order dated 7th April, 2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision being Revision No. 55 of 2011-2012 under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly (Manishankar vs. Prabhawati & Others). The revision has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly vide order dated 6th October, 2017. It is against these three orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner is only the legal heir of all properties of Mewa Lal, as Mewa Lal lived with the petitioner and his family till his death. He was expired issueless. Respondent no.5 is an stranger and she is not the real daughter of Mewa Lal. All the three authorities have not considered the correct facts and documentary as well as oral evidence led before them while passing the impugned orders, which are illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned counsels for the respondents state that the impugned orders are legal and correct. They have been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering all documentary as well as oral evidence. Therefore, they same cannot be interfered with by this Court. 7. Learned counsels for the respondents state that the impugned orders are legal and correct. They have been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering all documentary as well as oral evidence. Therefore, they same cannot be interfered with by this Court. In addition thereto, they submits that the fact that respondent no.5 Prabhawati Devi or the petitioner is legal heirs of Mewa Lal was examined in summary proceedings for deciding the application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The same cannot be considered in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ is not the proper remedy. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 9. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived, inasmuch as in proceedings for mutation, which are summary in nature, the genuineness or legality of legal heir etc. need not be gone into. The authorities have to form satisfaction on the basis of evidence produced. The authorities have recorded their satisfaction that a succession certificate of respondent no.5 is in existence and the same has been given effect to. Mutation proceedings are not the appropriate proceedings, in which validity of legal heir itself could be questioned. Remedy of the petitioner is to have instituted appropriate proceedings for declaration of title before the appropriate Court. In such circumstances, if the authorities have proceeded to hold that a succession certificate was in existence which has been given effect to, no interference is required to be made by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It shall, however, be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate declaration from the competent Court, with regard to validity of legal heir. Writ is not the proper remedy. 10. This writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration before competent court of law.