Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10655 of 2018 Petitioner :- Akhtar Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Shahi,Rahul Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.
An order dated 25.9.2007 under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 came to be passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a sale deed dated 2.12.2002. The respondent no.5 filed an application dated 22.3.2012 for recall of the order dated 25.9.2007, which came to be allowed on the same day on the ground that the order dated 25.9.2007 was based on a 'Ijazatnama' and not a registered sale deed. The petitioner filed an application dated 28/30.3.2012 along with affidavit for recall of order dated 22.3.2012, on 21.12.2015 with a finding that neither was any publication made, nor the same is on record upon restoration, matter would be decided afresh on merits, after hearing the parties concerned, which has been maintained in Appellate Order dated 25.7.2017 and in the revisional order dated 5.10.2017.
The effect of the orders impugned is that mutation proceedings initiated by the petitioner would be decided afresh after hearing the respondents concerned.
It is well settled that mutation proceedings do not decide title, same are relevant only for fiscal purposes. An order of mutation is subject to a decision in a suit. It is always open for the parties concerned to establish their right / claim before the competent court.
No good ground is made out to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 N.S.Rathour