Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 7172 of 2002 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. At Alld. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N.Singh,A.K. Rai,Bhuwan Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K.Srivastava,Suresh Kumar Gupta,V.K.Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta for the respondent no.1/1.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.01.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, was filed by the respondent no.2, since deceased, against respondent no.3.
During the pendency of the suit, the respondent no.3 transferred the property in suit to the petitioners by means of a registered sale deed. On the basis of this sale deed in their favour, the petitioner applied for mutation under the Land Revenue Act.
The trial Court in the suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, vide order dated 15.05.2000 summoned the file of the mutation case. As a consequence whereof, the mutation proceedings stood stalled.
The order summoning the file of the mutation case was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, wherein the order of the trial Court was set aside holding that the proceedings in a title case and a mutation case would not be consolidated as they were separate proceedings to be decided on entirely different parameters.
Aggrieved by the order, the respondent no.2 preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue upholding the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this writ petition.
The proceedings for mutation are summary proceedings having purely fiscal connotations. The findings returned in such proceedings are not binding upon the Courts in regular title proceedings. The object of the mutation proceedings is primarily to enable the State to recover the revenue from the persons recorded over the land.
On the other hand, the proceedings under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are purely title proceedings and these proceedings are independent of mutation proceedings.
The object of the mutation proceedings, therefore, is entirely different and as stated above, is purely fiscal in nature. For this reason, there appears no justification why the mutation proceedings are to remain stayed, which may, occasion loss of land revenue to the exchequer. Besides, the authorities/ Courts competent to decide the two proceedings are distinct and entirely different.
For this reason alone, the order passed by the trial Court consolidating the mutation and the title proceedings is totally unjustified and the view taken by the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order is not liable to be sustained.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 03.01.2002 and direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mowana to proceed with Suit No.304 of 1995 on its merits and to decide it positively within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
The file of the mutation case, which has been tagged with the suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be returned back to the mutation Court from which from where it had been summoned to be decided on its merits as expeditiously as possible.
Moreover, on the prayer of Counsel for the petitioner, it is provided that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mowana in order to comply with the directions contained in this order may hear the suit on a day to day basis to pass final orders within the time specified above.
It is further provided that the parties shall not be entitled to more than two adjournments, even and any adjournments beyond two specified above, shall be granted to the parties only on payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs for each adjournment.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 RKM