Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2447 (ALL)

Man Singh v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow

2024-12-02

JASPREET SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 20th March, 2024. 3. To put the matter in a perspective, certain facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter. 4. A mutation proceedings were initiated in respect of agricultural plot of land bearing No.370/1, 716, 376, 379, 380 situate in Village-Meerpur, Pargana & Tehsil Lakhimpur, District-Kheri. The said property had been put to public auction on 27.05.2014 in pursuance of satisfaction of a decree passed in a civil suit bearing No.331 of 2004, which gave rise to execution case No.15 of 2005. 5. The property in question initially belonged to Fateh Bahadur son of Bacchu Lal. In the instant petition, the controversy is limited to plot No.716 measuring 0.8740 hectare situate in Village- Meerpur, Pargana & Tehsil Lakhimpur, District-Kheri. Upon the death of Fateh Bahadur, his legal heirs sold the property in question, i.e., plot No.716 as described above to Shri Indresh Kumar- private respondent No.3 by means of a registered sale deed dated 01.10.2010. Some part of the property was sold out in execution case No.15 of 2005, which was thereafter confirmed and the sale certificate was issued and thereafter, the registered sale deeds were also executed. 6. The dispute arose when the property bearing plot No.716 was sold by Fateh Bahadur in favour of Saket Educational Society by means of a registered deed dated 06.05.2002. It later revealed that Fateh Bahadur had already sold the said land to one Shri Nizamuddin and Shri Reyazuddin on 30th October, 1999. Since the property had already been sold out by Fateh Bahadur, hence, he was not the owner and competent to execute the sale of the property to Saket Educational Society. 7. It is in this context that Saket Educational Society filed a civil suit bearing No.331 of 2004 seeking damages from Fateh Bahadur. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20.07.2005 and the said decree was put into execution which gave rise to the execution case No.14 of 2005. 8. 7. It is in this context that Saket Educational Society filed a civil suit bearing No.331 of 2004 seeking damages from Fateh Bahadur. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20.07.2005 and the said decree was put into execution which gave rise to the execution case No.14 of 2005. 8. While the said decree was being executed, in pursuance of the orders passed by the executing court, the Kurk Amin attached various agricultural properties of Fateh Bahadur for the purposes of satisfaction of the decree. Later, the said property was put to court auction and though objections were filed by private respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of Fateh Bahadur, but the auction was confirmed by the competent civil court and sale certificate was issued on 19.02.2015 and in furtherance thereof sale deed was executed on 26.02.2015. 9 . Thus, it would be seen that on one hand Saket Educational Society, in pursuance of the execution proceedings, was declared as the auction purchaser and on the other hand, the legal heirs of deceased Fateh Bahadur executed a sale deed in favour of Indresh Kumar- respondent No.3. Indresh Kumar applied for mutation of his name, while the name of the petitioner already stood mutated vide order dated 28.01.2016 on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.02.2015. 10. Private respondent No.3, on becoming aware of the mutation order dated 28.01.2016 in favour of the petitioner, moved an application for recall of the said order along with an application for condonation of delay. After due contest, the Naib Tehsildar allowed the restoration application and it set aside/recalled its earlier mutation order dated 28.01.2016. While the mutation proceedings were going on, the Naib Tehsildar once again reviewed its order dated 17.02.2022 and once again confirmed the order of mutation dated 28.01.2016. Being aggrieved, respondent No.3 filed an appeal against the order dated 28.01.2016 and 20.09.2022, which came to be allowed by means of the order dated 20.03.2024, which is under challenge in the instant petition and is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 11. Being aggrieved, respondent No.3 filed an appeal against the order dated 28.01.2016 and 20.09.2022, which came to be allowed by means of the order dated 20.03.2024, which is under challenge in the instant petition and is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 11. By means of the order dated 20.3.2024, the orders dated 28.01.2016 and 19.05.2022 and 20.09.2022 were set aside and the Tehsildar, Lakhimpur Kheri was directed that he would consolidate all cases and applications, which were filed between the parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall decide the matter afresh. 12. This order dated 20th March, 2024 was assailed by the petitioner in a revision and the revisional court also considering the disputed questions as well as several litigation pending before the civil court rejected the revision affirming the order dated 20.03.2024. The order passed by the revisional court dated 22.06.2024 is on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, which is also under challenge. 13. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the property has been purchased by the petitioner, hence, the mutation order made in favour of the petitioner should not have been recalled at the behest of private respondent No.3. Accordingly, the orders impugned are bad. 14. Learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.3 while refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner has raised preliminary objection and has submitted that the petitioner has made a selective disclosure of the facts. It is urged that there is fierce litigation between the petitioner and private respondent No.3, which is engaging attention of the civil courts in Lakhimpur Kheri and the same has not been appropriately disclosed by the petitioner by filing the instant petition and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition suffers from the vice of concealment of material facts. It is further urged that even otherwise once the title suits are already pending before the competent civil courts, the petitioner is not permitted to raise the said issues in writ jurisdiction, which arise from summary proceedings of mutation court. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable on the said grounds. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 15. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable on the said grounds. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 15. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 16. Considering the factual scenario, which indicates that several civil suits are pending in between the parties including the matter which is already engaging the attention of the mutation court, this Court finds that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 415 of 2024 ( Man Singh Vs. Indresh Kumar and Others ) a suit for permanent injunction pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner in the said suit had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was considered by the trial court and by means of the order dated 19.04.2024, an interim order was granted directing the parties to maintain the status quo. It is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a suit filed by Saket Educational Society, wherein the present petitioner is the defendant, he has also filed a counter claim seeking cancellation of the sale deed in favour of Indresh Kumar. The pleadings as well as the copies of civil suit, written statement containing counter claim inter alia the sale deeds in favour of respondent No.3 have been brought on record by private respondent No.3 along with his counter affidavit. 17. It is now well settled that mutation proceedings are only of a summary nature, which do not finally adjudicate the right, title or interest of any party and they are only for fiscal purposes. Since as per the admitted position, the petitioner has already filed his counter claim seeking challenge to the sale deed of respondent No.3 and even otherwise the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction, wherein an order of status quo dated 19.04.2024 is still subsisting in his favour and in any case, the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated finally in the said civil proceedings, hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid petition, which arises of summary proceedings. The two orders which have been impugned in the instant petition also reflect the pendency of various suits in between the parties, in context thereof the mutation court and the revisional court refrained from entertaining the respective case rather left it open for the Tehsildar, which has been directed to consider and decide the matter after hearing the parties. This being a remand order, which has no finality attached which nevertheless is subject to not only the order to be ultimately passed by the Tehsildar on the mutation side, which would be tentative in nature and subservient to the outcome of the civil suits. 18. Hence, in the light of the decision of Apex Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 , this Court finds that this is not an appropriate petition, where this Court may entertain the petition as it involves disputed question of title as well as disputed questions of law and facts, which can best be adjudicated in the pending civil suits. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself, leaving it open for the parties to contest the proceedings before the appropriate civil court. 20. It is made clear that no observations made by this Court be treated as an expression of opinion on merit and the Tehsildar before whom the matter has been remanded and the competent civil court shall decide the controversy on its own merits strictly in accordance with law. 21. Costs are made easy.