Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14723 of 2018 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Gupta,Jai Prakash Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Amresh Singh has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9.8.2007 in Case No.686/2007 (Ghanshyam Singh v. State) passed by Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bareilly; order dated 10.05.2010 in Appeal No.36/2007-08 (Ghanshyam Singh v. Mohd. Ishaq & Ors.) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bareilly; order dated 31.08.2017 in Revision No.20141200001922 (Arun Kumar Singh v. Mohd. Yasin) passed by Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Region, Bareilly and for a direction to Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Sadar, Bareilly (third respondent) to decide the Case No.686/2004 (Ghanshyam Singh v. Buland Ali Shah & Ors.) within stipulated period.
The record in question reflects that the revision in question has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Present writ petition has also been filed with delay of 139 days. The petitioner has not submitted any sufficient material to condone the delay. Moreover, the proceeding has been finalised under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, which is a summary proceeding. It is settled law that this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction in the orders passed in summary proceedings by revenue courts. It is always open to the parties to get their rights determined before the competent court of law in regular proceedings vide Awadhesh Singh v. Addl. Commissioner & Ors., 2017 (137) RD 114. This Court in the case of Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue & others, 2002 (1) AWC 169 has observed that although it cannot be held under all circumstances that writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings are not maintainable, but this Court does not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the reason that the parties have a right to get their title adjudicated by a regular suit and the orders passed in mutation proceedings are summary in nature.
In view of above, the Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 SP/