Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1680 (ALL)

Karam Chand v. Board of Revenue

2019-07-12

J.J.MUNIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. In compliance with the order dated 04.07.2019, Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has served respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 by means of Dasti service and has filed an affidavit of service of date. A perusal of the affidavit of service shows that respondent No.5 Vijay Kumar Tondon is dead, but in the submission of Sri Khan, his heirs and legal representatives, Dheeraj Tondon, is already on record as respondent No.8. Respondent No.6 Ajay Kumar Tondon, could not be served as he is out of town. So far as respondent Nos. 7 and 8 Sushil Tondon and Dheeraj Tondon, respectively are concerned, they have refused to accept notice in the presence of two witnesses, who have signed the endorsement of refusal in their presence. The affidavit of service is taken on record. 2. Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have transferred their interest in the property in dispute, and, therefore, have no further interest to contest these proceedings. Under the circumstances, no further steps need to be taken to serve these respondents. Liberty is, however, granted to respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, in the event they feel aggrieved by this order, to make an application in the decided petition. 3. Heard Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 4. This petition has been filed challenging an order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Revision no.189 of 2019 and connected Revision No.625 of 2019, whereby those revisions have been dismissed by the Board. The two revisions have been carried from the orders of the Tehsildar, dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019; one dated 04.01.2019 declining an application seeking opportunity to lead evidence, and another dated 01.02.2019, seeking amendment by way of addition of paragraph 16 to the objections filed to the mutation proceeding. Both these applications being rejected by the Tehsildar by orders dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019, the two revisions above referred, were filed to the Board, that have been dismissed by a common judgment as aforesaid. Both these applications being rejected by the Tehsildar by orders dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019, the two revisions above referred, were filed to the Board, that have been dismissed by a common judgment as aforesaid. A perusal of the orders passed by the Tehsildar, dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019, as also the orders in revisions impugned passed by the Board of Revenue appear to have been made more out of concern for an expeditious disposal of the mutation case, which is certainly required to be decided within a specified period of time under Rule 34(7) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Code. However, concern for an expeditious disposal cannot be at the cost of prejudicing the rights of parties. In case, some substantial objection is desired by a party to the mutation proceedings to be raised and some evidence is also desired to be led, it is in the interest of all parties that opportunity is granted so as to obviate any further issues being raised about the matter that may lead to multiplicity of litigation. Though mutation proceedings are summary in nature, and have for their object fiscal interest of the State, the principles generally applicable to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in the opinion of this Court, would require that requisite amendment proposed to be made and evidence sought to be led by the petitioner be granted. 5. At this stage Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submits that though he does not wish to file a counter affidavit, and the matter may be disposed of finally so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the substantive mutation proceedings, he takes objections to the petitioner's locus to file this petition. This objection is founded on the fact that in the transaction of sale relating to these mutation proceedings, the petitioner is neither a vendor or the vendee. To this, Sri J.H. Khan, submits that the sale is in relation to Plot No.31 of Village Busauli (Badhar), Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, which is part of a joint Khata No.00274. As such, on account of pendency of these mutation proceedings, the petitioner being a co-sharer, is facing prejudice. 6. To this, Sri J.H. Khan, submits that the sale is in relation to Plot No.31 of Village Busauli (Badhar), Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, which is part of a joint Khata No.00274. As such, on account of pendency of these mutation proceedings, the petitioner being a co-sharer, is facing prejudice. 6. Considering the entire circumstances of this case, this Court is of opinion that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision no.189 of 2019 and connected Revision No.625 of 2019, and the impugned orders dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019 passed in Mutation Case no.1798/2013-14 Computer Case No.T-20171666105340 cannot be sustained, and those passed on the two mutation applications deserve to be reversed. 7. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed in Revision no.189 of 2019 and connected Revision No.625 of 2019, and the impugned orders dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019 passed in Mutation Case no.1798/2013-14 Computer Case No.T-20171666105340 are hereby quashed. 8. The applications dated 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019 made in Mutation Case no.1798/2013-14 on the file of the Tehsildar, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra stand allowed. The Tehsildar will permit the requisite amendment to be incorporated within 24 hours of the production of a certified copy of this order and the required evidence shall be led by the petitioner within three days; and the entire evidence shall be led within a week thereafter on behalf of all the parties. The Tehsildar shall thereafter proceed to decide the mutation case within a period of six weeks without granting any adjournment to the parties on any ground whatsoever. There shall be no order as to costs.