Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1845 (ALL)

Gupteshwar v. State of U. P.

2023-08-02

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2023
JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.2 of 2023 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the instant application is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day. Order on Writ petition Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Guran son of Raghunath was recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute. After death of Guran, name of contesting respondents were ordered to be recorded on the basis of Pa Ka-11 vide order dated 23.02.1990. Petitioners applied for mutation of their names only in place of recorded tenure holder Guran on the basis of succession under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The family pedigree which was given by contesting respondents in their pleading will be relevant in order or appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, which is as under: 3. Tehsildar vide order dated 09.01.1992 set aside the order dated 23.02.1990 and ordered to be record the name of petitioners in place of deceased recorded tenure holder Guran over plot No.70 area 1.14 dismal. Against the order dated 09.01.1992, contesting respondents filed restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay, which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2014 setting aside the order dated 09.01.1992 and restoring the mutation case on the original number. Against the order dated 25.08.2014 petitioner filed a restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay on 01.12.2014. Tehsildar vide order dated 20.11.2014 decided the dispute of mutation and ordered to record the name of petitioners as well as contesting respondents in place of deceased tenure holder Guran. Against the order dated 20.11.2014, petitioners filed a revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, which has been registered as Revision No.1973 of 2015. The aforementioned revision was heard by Board of Revenue and vide order dated 16.08.2021 disposed of the revision filed by petitioners and directed the Tehsildar to decide the restoration application dated 01.12.2014 filed by petitioners as directed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.02.2015. The aforementioned revision was heard by Board of Revenue and vide order dated 16.08.2021 disposed of the revision filed by petitioners and directed the Tehsildar to decide the restoration application dated 01.12.2014 filed by petitioners as directed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.02.2015. Tehsildar heard the mutation matter in pursuance of the order of revisional Court dated 16.08.2021 and vide order dated 09.03.2023 rejected the restoration application dated 01.12.2014 filed by petitioners and affirmed the order dated 23.02.1990 passed on the basis of Pa Ka 11 as well as subsequent order dated 20.11.2014 and 25.08.2014 hence this writ petition for quashing the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by respondent No.4. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that rejection of the petitioners' restoration application on the ground of limitation is wholly illegal. He further submitted that mutation case should be decided on merit in place of technical ground. He further submitted that contesting respondents are not entitled to be recorded in place of deceased recorded tenure holder Guran. He further submitted that petitioners were rightly filed their claim for mutation on the basis of succession, but the case of the petitioners has not been examined on merit in accordance with law rather the restoration application filed by petitioners has been rejected on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that contesting respondents have already filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act and another proceeding initiated by contesting respondents under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act has been dismissed as such contesting respondents are not entitled to be recorded in place of Gurun. He finally submitted that impugned order be set aside and matter should be sent back before Tehsildar to allow the petitioners' restoration application and decide the mutation case afresh on merit. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that writ petition arises out of mutation proceeding as such the same is not maintainable in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue and Others, reported in (2022) 155 R.D. 169 He further submitted that order impugned has been passed by Tehsildar, as such the petitioners have alternate remedy to challenge the same in appropriate forum. He next submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order passed in summary proceeding and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that name of the petitioners and contesting respondent were ordered to be recorded on the basis of Pa-Ka-11 in the year 1990 as well as vide order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Tehsildar. There is also no dispute about that fact that petitioners have claimed that they are only to be recorded in place of deceased recorded tenure holder Guran. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration application filed by petitioners against the order dated 23.02.1990 has been rejected and the order dated 23.02.1990 as well as 20.11.2014 have been maintained. 8. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration application filed by petitioners against the order dated 23.02.1990 has been rejected and the order dated 23.02.1990 as well as 20.11.2014 have been maintained. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the finding recorded by the Tehsildar vide order dated 09.03.2023 will be relevant for consideration: ^^fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl lquh x;h rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g rF; Li"V gS fd vafdr [kkrsnkj ekStk&fu/kfj;k ds vk0ua0 70 jdck 1-14 fM0] ijxuk&cfyk] rglhy o ftyk&cfyk ij xqju iq= j?kqukFk FksA muds e`R;q ijkUr fnukad 23-02-1990 dks jktLo fujh{k.k }kjk rtohtlkuhdRrkZx.k o foi{khx.k rFkk ykoYn e`rd lksucjlh iRuh jke/kuh dk uke vafdr gqvkA rRi'pkr orZeku iquLFkkZidrkZx.k }kjk /kkjk&33@34 dk ,d fjiksVZ fnukad 09-08-1990 dks bl vk'k; ls nkf[ky fd;k fd xqju ds LFkku ij orZeku rtohtlkuhdRrkZx.k dk uke vafdr fd;k tk;A dSfQ;r [kkus esa ;g nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS fd xqju ds e`R;q ds mijkUr nsoiwtu iq= xqju dh ojklr ugh gks ik;h Fkh vkSj fnukad 06-07-1969 dks gh mudh e`R;q gks x;hA fjiksVZ ds lkFk m)j.k [krkSuh fnukad 21-02-1990 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS] tcfd fnukad 20-03-1990 ds tkjh m)j.k [krkSuh ij i0d0&11 dk vkns'k fnukad 23-02-1990 vafdr gks pqdk FkkA dSfQ;r [kkus esa i0d0&11 ds vkns'k dks fujLr djus ds ckor dksbZ bcknr vafdr ugha gSA ewy i=koyh esa y{kq jke ds gLrk{kj ls fnukad 24-02-1990 dks vkifRr o [krkSuh nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA rRdkyhu iz/kku xkSjh'kadj dh vkifRr ij xqIrs'oj vkfn }kjk izfr vkifRr nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 19-03-1991 dks {ks=h; ys[kiky dk c;ku vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ikd&11 ds vkns'k dks lgh ekuk x;k gSA xqIrs'oj }kjk vius c;ku fnukad 16-04-1991 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd y{kq dk vaxqBk fu'kku gS vkSj i=koyh esa mifLFkr ugh gq, gSa] cfYd muds rjQ ls bEiksLVj }kjk nj[kkLr fnyok;k x;k gSA bl izdkj lk;yku xqIrs'oj vkfn dk ;g dFku fd ewy okn la?k"kksZijkUr fu.khZr gqvk] xyr fl) gks tkrk gS rFkk vkns'k fnukad 09-01-1992 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd okn dk fu.kZ; ,di{kh; :i ls gqvk gS rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{k;ksa dh mfpr foospuk Hkh ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlls U;k;ky; us vius foLr`r foosfpr vkns'k fnukad 25-08-2014 }kjk fujLr fd;k gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd xqIrs'oj }kjk nQk&34 dh fjiksVZ rks fnukad 09-08-1990 dks izLrqr fd;k gS] tcfd fjiksVZ ds lkFk layXu m)j.k [krkSuh fnukad 21-02-1990 dks tkjh gS] ftls rRdkyhu ys[kiky }kjk Lo;a ds }kjk tkjh fd;k tkuk vius c;ku fnukad 19-03-1991 esa vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk fnukad 20-03-1990 dks tkjh m)j.k [krkSuh ftl ij e`rd xqju ds yky L;kgh ds ojklr vkns'k vafdr gS] tkjh fd;k tkuk Lohdkj gSA bl izdkj dwV jpuk o Ny&Níe ls izkIr vkns'k dks [kf.Mr djds U;k;ky; us dksbZ voS/kkfud ugha dkfjr fd;k gSA pwWafd xqIrs'oj vkfn }kjk QzkM dkfjr djds id&11 ds mfpr vkns'k dh [kf.Mr djk djds ,di{kh; vkns'k fnukad 09-01-1992 gkfly fd;k Fkk] ftlds fo:) esok] jkey{ku }kjk tkudkjh ds i'pkr rtohtlkuh izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls U;k;ky; }kjk lk{k;ksijkUr xq.k nks"k ij id&11 ds vkns'k fnukad 23-02-1990 dks gh vius vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2014 esa vfHkizekf.kr fd;k gSA lsok vkfn }kjk fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij tkjh udy iaftdk tUe e`R;q xzke fu/kfj;k U;k; iapk;r [kksjhikdM] Fkkuk&dksrokyh ofy;k ftyk&cfyk nkf[ky ij ;g vfHkizekf.kr fd;k gS fd f'koiwtu jke xksaM ds firk dk uke xqju xksaM gSA lsok vkfn ds rtohtekuh ds dze esa tkjh uksfVl ds lkf{k;ksa dk 'kiFk i= nkf[ky gS fd xqIrs'oj vkfn us muds le{k uksfVl ysus ls budkj fd;s rc muds edku ij uksfVl pLik fd;k x;kA bl izdkj xqIrs'oj vkfn dks esok vkfn dh rtohtlkuh rFkk ewy okn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2014 dh tkudkjh 'kq: ls jgh gS vkSj os tku cw> dj eqdnekokth ds fy, okn nkf[ky fd;k gSA /kkjk 201 ds vUrxZr ;g lkfcr djuk gksrk gS fd ,di{kh; vkns'k ls mldh gdrYQh o U;k; dk guu gqvk gS] ijUrq lk;yku ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs fd vkns'k fnukad 25-08-2014 o 20-11-2014 ls mudh D;k gdrYQh jgh gS vkSj mDr vkns'kksa ds foosfpr lk{k;ksa ds foijhr muds ikl dkSu lk lk{; miyC/k gSA xqIrs'oj }kjk fnukad 12-05-2015 dks udy tUe] e`R;q iaftdk xzke fu/kfj;k] U;k; iapk;r [kksjhikdj] xzke lHkk fu/kfj;k fnukad 21-04-1951 ls 12-11-1955 Fkkuk dksrokyh cfy;k nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSa] ftlesa e`rd f'koiwtu ds firk dk uke vafdr gh ugha gS] tcfd esok }kjk nkf[ky lcwr fnukad 30-09-2014 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd udy tUe&e`R;q iaftdk xzke fu/kfj;k U;k; iapk;r [kksjhikdj] Fkkuk dksrokyh cfy;k] ftyk&cfyk] e`rd f'koiwtu jke xksaM ds firk xqju xksaM Li"V :i ls vafdr gS rFkk izekf.kr izfrfyfi ernkrk lwph o"kZ 1968 ds voyksdu ls Hkh Li"V gS fd xqIrs'oj vkfn lk;yku rFkk foi{khx.k esok vkfn ,d gh ifjokj ls lEcfU/kr gSaA xqIrs'oj vkfn rtohtlkuhdRrkZx.k us rtohtlkuh ds vk/kkj esa f'ko iwtu e`rd ds firk dk uke jkepju dgk gS fdUrq bl ckor dksbZ lk{k; muds rjQ ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA rtohtlkuh ds dze esa xqIrs'oj vkfn ds nkf[ky lcwr fnukad 12-05-2015 ij fookn gksus ij rRdkyhu izHkkjh vf/kdkjh vfHkys[kkxkj QkStnkjh dysDV~jsV] cfy;k dks ryc fd;k x;k vkSj lqjs'k ujk;.k nhf{kr dk c;ku fnukad 23-05-2015 dks vafdr fd;k x;k] muds }kjk nksuksa i{kksa ds tkjh tUe&e`R;q jftLVj dks lgh gksuk izekf.kr fd;k x;kA blls Li"V gS fd e`rd f'koiwtu ds firk dk uke iwoZ esa vafdr jgk] ijUrq dkykUrj esa xqIrs'oj vkfn }kjk dwV jpuk djk;h x;h] ftlds ckor nkf.Md dk;Zokgh /kkj&419]420]468]467 o 471 esa ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 gksdj nkf.Md U;k;ky; esa pktZ 'khV nkf[ky gks pqdk gS tks U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA bl izdkj xqIrs'oj vkfn LoPN :i ls U;k;ky; esa rtohtlkuh okn nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us Li"V fd;k gS fd xqIrs'oj vkfn us fof'k"V rF; ds ckjs esa dFku fd;k gS] ijUrq blds ckor dksbZ lk{k; izLrqr ugh fd;k gS] blfy, diksy&dfYir vk/kkjksa izLrqr iquLFkkZiu okn Lohdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrkA iquLFkkZiu okn Lohdkj djus esa ,d r~:fViw.kZ vkns'k iquLFkkZfir gks tk;sxk tks 1997 vkj0Mh0 ist&324 ds vuqlkj vuqeU; ugh gSA bl izdkj lk;yku dk vkpj.k LoPN ugh gS vkSj rtohtlkuh cyghu vk/kkjksa ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj rtohtlkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vr% mijksDr foospuk ds ifjis{k; esa rtohtlkuh xqIrs'oj vkfn ds fcyEc o U;k; ds guu ds fcUnq ij fnukad 01-12-2014 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA id&11 ds vkns'k fnukad 23-02-1990 ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2014 o vkns'k fnukad 25-08-2014 dk;e o cgky jgus ;ksX; gSA okn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA g0vi0 09-03-2023 rglhynkj cfy;kA** 9. Finding recorded by the Tehsildar reveals that contesting respondents are also entitled to be recorded along with petitioners in place of deceased recorded tenure holder Guran as contesting respondents are also member of family. The order passed by Tehsildar further reveals that evidences adduced by the parties before the Tehsildar were also taken into consideration. 10. Considering the findings recorded by Tehsildar there is no scope for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to reopen the mutation proceeding, which is going on for last more than 32 years. The writ petition is dismissed. 11. Mutation proceeding are summary proceeding which is always subject to the adjudication of the dispute if any, by the regular court. Needless to say that the judgment passed in the summary proceeding will not come in the way of the parties to the dispute to establish their claim before the regular Court.