Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2497 (ALL)

Devbrat v. Rajasva Parishad U. P. Lucknow

2024-12-10

JASPREET SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 as well as the order dated 16.01.2023 which has been passed by the respondent no. 2. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation proceedings were initiated upon the death of Chavinath. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question belonged to one Sri Jagdeo who was survived by his two sons namely Chavinath and Makkalal. The present petitioner Devbrat is the son of Makka Lal. 5. Since Makka Lal had expired and his property/estate was inherited by Sri Devbrat. Subsequently, upon the death of Sri Chavilal, it is the case of the petitioner that he being the nephew (son of the real brother) was a preferential heir and the property would devolve upon him. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the predecessors-in-interest of private respondent nos. 3 to 5 namely Sri Bhagirath @ Bhagole, claiming himself to be son of Chavilal had got his name duly mutated in terms of PA-11. 7. In the year 1992, more precisely on 13.05.1992, Sri Bhagirath had sold plot no. 424 which he inherited from Chavilal to Smt. Bhagwana who was the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent nos. 6 to 8. 8. The petitioner had moved an application for mutation which came to be allowed on 28.01.1998 and the name of the petitioner was mutated. At the first instance, the said mutation order came to be accepted by Bhagirath @ Bhagole, however, Smt. Bhagwana had acquired rights in so far as plot No. 424 is concerned by virtue of sale deed dated 13.05.1992, she moved an application seeking recall of the mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner. This application came to be rejected on 22.08.1996 against which an appeal was preferred which also was rejected on 11.10.1996. The matter was carried in revision before the Board of Revenue which came to be allowed on 16.06.2000 and the matter was remanded to be considered afresh. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, another recall application came to be filed by Bhagirath @ Bhagole calling in question the mutation order in favour of the petitioner. The matter was carried in revision before the Board of Revenue which came to be allowed on 16.06.2000 and the matter was remanded to be considered afresh. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, another recall application came to be filed by Bhagirath @ Bhagole calling in question the mutation order in favour of the petitioner. In so far as this second limb of the recall application moved by the Bhagole is concerned, the same did not find favour and it was rejected on 30th July, 2001 whereafter the appeal was preferred which also came to be dismissed on 15.10.2001 and this matter was also taken up before the Board of Revenue. 10. In the meantime, the petitioner had moved a petition before the High Court seeking expeditious disposal of the same and it is in the aforesaid context that the matter was remitted once again to be considered afresh taking note of the two sets of recall application; one made by Bhagirath @ Bhagole and the other made by Smt. Bhagwana. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the aforesaid backdrop once the recall application had already been moved by Smt. Bhagwana, it was not open for Bhagirath @ Bhagole to move the application since he had already sold the property. It was also the case that even if the converse is taken to be correct that once Bhagirath @ Bhagole had moved an application for recall then the recall at the behest of the successor also would not lie and otherwise it would give rise to contradictory findings at the behest of two persons. While this was pending Bhagirath @ Bhagole had expired and the third set of objections came to be filed by the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 who are the heirs of Bhagirath @ Bhagole. 12. Once again, the objection is that once the predecessors-in- interest namely Bhagirath @ Bhagole had filed the objections/recall which was under consideration, it was not open for the successors namely the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 to have moved a separate set of recall which was not maintainable and in such circumstances where the issue of maintainability was engaging the attention , this should have been first decided rather this aspect has not been taken note of and the impugned orders have been passed. 13. 3 to 5 to have moved a separate set of recall which was not maintainable and in such circumstances where the issue of maintainability was engaging the attention , this should have been first decided rather this aspect has not been taken note of and the impugned orders have been passed. 13. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and after perusing the record, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has made any attempt to assail the sale deed dated 13.05.1992. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no challenge to the said sale deed. 15. Considering the fact that the instant proceedings are arising out of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature and it is now too well settled to be questioned that the mutation entries neither create title nor extinguish it. The sale deed dated 13.05.1992 still continues to hold the field. This assumes significance for the reason that it is the case of the petitioner that Bhagirath @ Bhagole was not the son of Chavinath. This has not been adjudicated till now and in case if as stated by the petitioner that the mutation order passed in his favour in the first instance on 28.01.1998 is concerned, at that point of time Bhagirath @ Bhagole had already consented that he had no right to contest rather the property may be mutated in the name of Devbrat needs to be seen for the reason that on one hand the property has come in the hands of Sri Devbrat and on the other the property in the hands of Smt. Bhagwana is on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.05.1992 which was executed by Bhagirath @ Bhagole. 16. In the aforesaid backdrop, the fact that stares at the face is that if the ground taken by the petitioner is taken to be correct then the sale deed could not have been executed by Bhagirath @ Bhagole in favour of Smt. Bhagwana and the fact which remains uncontroverted is that there is no challenge to the sale deed dated 13.05.1992. Since the issue of title is still not in challenge, coupled with the fact that Smt. Bhagwana is deriving her rights on the basis of a sale deed which has not been challenged, consequently, this shadow boxing between the parties which is going on for decades cannot be countenanced and for the said reasons, this Court is unable to persuade itself to entertain the petition arising out of a summary proceedings leaving it open for the petitioners that if the petitioner has any grievance, he can assail or take recourse as may be available to him in law. Needless to say that the mutation proceedings which are pending before the appropriate Authority may be decided as expeditiously as possible as it is not in public interest that litigation arising out of summary proceedings be languished. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.