Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2009 (ALL)

Mohd Jawed v. State Of U. P.

2024-09-04

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the notices upon the private respondents no. 4 and 5 are dispensed with. 3. The writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 2792 of 2024, Computerized No. AL20240242002792 (Reshma Parveen Vs. Mohd. Jawed and Others) whereby and whereunder the revision against the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the S.D.O., Sirathu, Kaushambi in appeal has been entertained, notice has been issued fixing 22.10.2024 and the operation of the order dated 06.05.2024 has been stayed till the next date of listing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The father of the petitioner namely Sarfaraz Ali was the recorded Bhumidhar with transferable rights of Arazi No. 96, area 1.1310 hectares contained in Khata No. 123 (old 112) of village Bihamidpur, Pargana Kara, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi. The petitioner is the only son of his father. Sarfaraz Ali expired on 08.04.2015 leaving behind the petitioner as his only heir and legal representative. The name of the petitioner was mutated over the Khata No. 123 under PA-11 vide order dated 15.04.2015. The respondent no. 4-Mohd. Nazim Ali claiming himself to be son of Late Sarfaraz Ali filed a case under section 34 of the Revenue Code, which case was registered as Case No. 3888 of 2016 for mutating his name in the revenue records. The claim of the respondent no. 4 was based upon fraudulent entry in the family register describing him as son of Late Sarfaraz Ali. The fraudulent entry was corrected on the complaint by the petitioner to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kamalpur, Sirathu, District Kaushambi and a note was made in the family register that the respondent no. 3, his wife and son are not the family members of Late Sarfaraz Ali. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent no. 4 instituted another Case No. 00702 of 2018 Computerized Case No. T-201802420400702 (Mohd. Nazim Ali Vs. 3, his wife and son are not the family members of Late Sarfaraz Ali. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent no. 4 instituted another Case No. 00702 of 2018 Computerized Case No. T-201802420400702 (Mohd. Nazim Ali Vs. Sarfarz Ali) before the Naib Tehsildar (North) Sirathu, Kaushambi, under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and behind the back of the petitioner obtained an order dated 08.08.2018 mutating his name along with that of the petitioner. The petitioner on getting knowledge of the order dated 08.08.2018 sought recall of the same, which was allowed vide order dated 07.09.2018 and the Mutation Case was restored and fixed for hearing. However, the respondent no. 4 on a transfer application moved before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad on an exparte motion got the mutation case transferred from the Court of Naib Tehsildar (North) Sirathu, District Kaushambi to the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur and again by another Transfer Application got the case transferred from the Court of Tehsildar, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi to the Court of the Tehsildar, Tehsil Chail, Kaushambi. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Chail, District Kaushambi vide his order dated 12.08.2021 set aside the order dated 07.09.2018 and maintained the order dated 08.08.2018. All these proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 taking advantage of his name being recorded over the Khata has transferred the land in dispute in favour of Noor Mohd. s/o Qutubuddin and Arun Kumar s/o Sita Ram. It is alleged that Arun Kumar has agreed to sell the land in favour of respondent no. 5-Reshma Parveen, however to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner no sale deed has yet been executed in favour of the respondent no. 5. 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2021 has filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 5000 of 2021. The respondent no. 5 is stated to have filed an impleadment application in the appeal stating that she has purchased the land from the respondent no. 4-Mohd. Nazim Ali on 17.09.2021 and is a necessary party in the appeal. The impleadment application was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2023. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed subsequently vide order dated 06.05.2024 and matter was remanded for fresh consideration to the Court of Tehsildar. 6. 4-Mohd. Nazim Ali on 17.09.2021 and is a necessary party in the appeal. The impleadment application was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2023. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed subsequently vide order dated 06.05.2024 and matter was remanded for fresh consideration to the Court of Tehsildar. 6. The order dated 06.05.2024 has been assailed in Revision No. 2792 of 2024 by the respondent no. 5 before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. The Board of Revenue has entertained the Revision, issued notices to the petitioner and fixed the date 22.10.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that from the facts narrated above and as is also borne out from the records, the entire proceedings initiated are exfacie fraudulent and manipulated only to deprive the petitioner of his rightful claim to the properties left behind by his late father Sarfaraz Ali. It is also contended that the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. against the respondent no. 4 and in the enquiry made during the investigation in the said criminal case, it has been found that Mohd. Nazim/Respondent no. 4 is not the brother of the petitioner rather is the son of the paternal aunt of the petitioner. It is also contended that the sale deed executed by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the respondent no. 5 is without authority of law and in any case the respondent no. 5 application for impleadment had been rejected under order dated 23.03.2023 and in the absence of any challenge to the said order, the respondent no. 5 could not have maintained the revision and the Board of Revenue committed manifest error of law in overlooking this aspect of the matter and not only entertaining the revision at the instance of the respondent no. 5 but staying the operation of the order dated 06.05.2024 sought to be revised. It is accordingly contended that the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16.07.2024 be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents in opposition to the writ petition submits that the writ petition is directed against the interlocutory order and may not be entertained and warrante dismissal at the threshold. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find that admittedly the Revision No. 2792 of 2024 (Reshma Praveen Vs. Mohd. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find that admittedly the Revision No. 2792 of 2024 (Reshma Praveen Vs. Mohd. Zaved and Others) is pending before the Board of Revenue. The petitioner pursuant to the notices issued has not appeared before the Board of Revenue and yet not filed his objections apprising the Board of Revenue of the actual factual position and has straight away rushed to this Court. The petitioner has not sought the quashing of the proceedings of the revision and appears to be aggrieved only against the stay order at 16.07.2024 granted by the Board of Revenue. The Court further finds that the petitioner has infact prayed for expeditious disposed of the Revision. 10. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would stand subserved by permitting the petitioner to appear in the pending revision before the Board of Revenue, file his objection and seek vacation of the order, which shall be considered by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law on the date fixed in the matter. Thereafter, all endeavor shall be made by the Board of Revenue to decide the revision itself within three months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order of this Court. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of. 13. No order as to costs.