Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 314 (ALL)

Mohan Lal v. State of U. P.

2020-01-28

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition arises out of a mutation case under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in an appeal and the order dated 21.10.2019, whereby the consequential revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division, Jhansi. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to land of khata No. 361 situated in village Kairokhar, Tehsil Garotha, District Jhansi and khata No. 204 of village Durchau, Tehsil Garotha, District Jhansi, which were recorded in the name of one Dayaram. 4. Dayaram is stated to have died sometime in 1991 and after his death, a PA-11 entry was made in favour of the petitioners, who are his brothers. It appears that on 9.12.2010, a mutation application was filed by the respondents 5 and 6 claiming to be the unmarried daughters of Dayaram. 5. The Tehsildar vide order dated 26.2.2011 rejected the mutation application. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 15.12.2012 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set-aside the order of the Tehsildar as also the PA-11 entry made in favour of the petitioners on 7.3.1991. The consequential revision has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 21.10.2019 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hence this writ petition. 6. Before the Courts below as also before this Court, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents, in any case, are not the daughters of Dayaram. Even if it is assumed that they are the daughters of Dayaram, they were already married on the date Dayaram, died. The married daughters are lower in the order of succession as compared to the brothers of the deceased. The impugned orders are therefore contrary to law and are liable to be set-aside. 7. It has also been submitted that the mutation application was filed almost 18 years after the PA-11 entry had been made in favour of the petitioners. The mutation application was, therefore, barred by time and could not have been allowed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 9. 7. It has also been submitted that the mutation application was filed almost 18 years after the PA-11 entry had been made in favour of the petitioners. The mutation application was, therefore, barred by time and could not have been allowed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 9. On the question of limitation, the Courts below have rightly observed that no limitation is provided for filing a mutation case under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 10. I am in complete agreement with the observation made by the Courts below. 11. In the absence of any limitation being provided, the contention that the mutation application of the respondents were barred by time is wholly without substance. 12. Insofar as the contention that the respondents were not the daughters of the deceased Dayaram, a finding to the contrary has been returned, relying upon the High School certificate of the respondent No. 5, wherein she is recorded as the daughter of Dayaram. This certificate is of the year 1990. 13. Under the circumstances, the finding returned in the impugned orders that the respondents are the daughters of the deceased Dayaram is a finding supported by documentary evidence on record. 14. On the question as to whether respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were married or unmarried on the date Dayaram died, the finding again is that both daughters were unmarried. This is a finding of fact, which is again based upon appreciation of the evidence and oral testimony available on record. Such finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the petitioners' case that the finding in this regard is a perverse finding. 15. It is also not in dispute that under section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, an unmarried daughter is higher in order of succession as compared to the brother of the deceased. 16. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders are found to be in consonance with the provisions of section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 17. For the same reason, the writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.