Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 447 (ALL)

Maiyaadeen v. Board of Revenue

2025-03-06

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2025
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lavkush Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Praveen Kumar Mishra learned counsel for respondent No.5/1, Mr Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Surajpal son of Visheshor expired in the year 2004. On the basis of Pa.Ka.11 name of the petitioners were recorded in place of deceased Surajpal as real brothers of deceased. Respondent No.5/Devratiya filed a case under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before Tehsildar on the basis of succession and the proceeding was registered as Case No. 287, which was decided on 18.10.2004 by Tehsildar (Judicial) Karvi, District Chitrakoot and the claim of respondent No.5- Devratiya was rejected. Against order dated 18.10. 2004, appeal has been filed on the half respondent No.5-Devratiya, which was registered as Appeal No.15 of 2004, Sub Divisional Officer, vide order 05.05.2005 dismissed the appeal. Against the order dated 05.05.2005, review application filed by respondent No.5-Devratiya was allowed vide order dated 27.06.2005 and the appeal was heard as well as allowed vide subsequent order dated 27.06.2005 directing to record the name of respondent No.5-Devratiya in place of deceased Surajpal. Petitioners challenged the order dated 27.06.2005 by way of Revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, which was registered as revision No.76/38 of 2005-06. The aforementioned revision was heard by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda and vide order dated 04.06.2007, appellate order dated 27.06.2005 was set aside and earlier order dated 05.05.2005 was maintained. Against the order dated 04.06.2007 revision was filed on behalf of respondent no. 5/Devratiya before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision N0. 2548/LR/2006-07 and Board of Revenue vide order dated 10.01.2012 directed to record the name of respondent no. 5/Devratiya on the basis of succession in place of deceased Surajpal, hence this petition for following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 in between Devratiya Vs. Maiyadeen passed in Revision No.2548/L.R.2006-07 District Chitrakoot." 2.1 This Court vide order dated 01.03.2012 entertained the matter and directed parties to maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the land in dispute. 3. Maiyadeen passed in Revision No.2548/L.R.2006-07 District Chitrakoot." 2.1 This Court vide order dated 01.03.2012 entertained the matter and directed parties to maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the land in dispute. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 01.03.2012 short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5/1-Gora son of Devratiya. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were rightly ordered to be recorded on the basis of Pa.Ka.11 in place of deceased- Surajpal. He further submitted that claim set up under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act by respondent no. 5/Devratiya was rejected and order was maintained in appeal, but on the basis of review application filed by respondent no. 5/Devratiya, the earlier order has been set aside by subsequent order and Devratiya was ordered to be recorded in arbitrary manner. He submitted that revision filed by petitioners was allowed but Board of Revenue illegally exercised the revisional jurisdiction in setting the side the order passed by Additional Commissioner to record the name of petitioners in place of deceased-Surajpal. He submitted that impugned order passed by Sub Divisional Officer for recording the name of Devratiya as well as order passed by Board of Revenue are wholly illegal. He submitted that jurisdiction was properly exercised by Tehsildar for rejecting the claim of respondent no.5/Devratiya which shall be subject to adjudication of dispute, if any, by regular court rather parties contest the proceeding in the summary jurisdiction. 5. Mr Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5/1 placed the averment made in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of short counter affidavit. He submitted that respondent No.5/1 is not contesting the claim of the petitioners in any manner and he has no objection for recording the names of petitioners over the plot in question. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that on the basis of Pa.Ka.11 petitioners were ordered to be recorded over the plot in dispute in place of deceased-Surajpal. There is also no dispute about the fact that claim setup under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act by respondent no. 5/Devratiya, was rejected, which was initially maintained in appeal but on the basis of the review application fresh order was passed in appeal directing to record the name of respondent no.5/Devratiya. There is also no dispute about the fact that claim setup under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act by respondent no. 5/Devratiya, was rejected, which was initially maintained in appeal but on the basis of the review application fresh order was passed in appeal directing to record the name of respondent no.5/Devratiya. There is also no dispute about the fact that Additional Commissioner has allowed the claim of petitioner, but Board of Revenue has again set aside order of the Additional commissioner as well as directed to record the name of respondent no. 5/Devratiya in place of deceased Surajpal. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of order passed by the Tehsildar rejecting the claim of Devratiya will be relevant, which is as under: 9. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by the Tahsildar while deciding the application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act it is established that jurisdiction was properly exercised by Tahsildar in rejecting the claim of respondent no. 5/Devratiya in respect to the plot in question. 10. Considering the finding of fact record by Tahsildar there was no occasion to interfere with the order of mutation passed by Tahsildar in the appellate jurisdiction by Sub-Divisional Officer as well as in the revisional jurisdiction by the Board of Revenue. 11. It is also material to mention that respondent no. 5/1 is not opposing the claim of petitioners in view of the averment made in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the short counter affidavit dated 04.07.2023 filed before this Court. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 10.01.2012 passed by respondent No.1/ Board of Revenue in revision No.2548/L.R./2006-07 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 04.06.2007 passed by respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda is hereby affirmed. 13. No order as to costs.