This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act. The dispute relates to plot No. 423,431, 463, 481, 482,485, 614K, 639, 640, 644 Ka, 670 kha, 920 situated in Village Vishambharpur, Pargana Surhurpur, Tahsil Jalalpur district Ambedkar.
It is the case of the petitioners that their father Jhinnu was recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioners claim on the basis of a registered will in their favour. All three sons of Jhinnu were recorded on the basis of PA-11 contrary to the Will set up by the petitioner wherein as per their case, the opposite party no.6 was not entitled to any share. An order was passed on 29.8.1988 in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Tehsildar, the PA-11 entry was expunged and objection of opposite party no.6 was rejected..
Against this order dated 29.8.88 an appeal was filed by the respondent no.6 wherein the order impugned was set aside and the matter was remanded. In pursuance of the order of remand the Tahsildar passed an order on 15.4.2002 maintaining the earlier entry in favour of the three brothers. This order was affirmed in appeal against which a writ petition was preferred before this Court. This writ petition was ultimately dismissed relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy of revision. This revision is said to be pending disposal before the Commissioner.
It is the further case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court an order of status quo was operating and this order of status quo continued to operate during the pendency of the revision before the Commissioner. In violation of this, order of status quo, the respondent no.6, Ram Dular, is alleged to have executed a sale deed in favour of the opposite party nos.3 to 5 who applied for mutation on the basis of the said sale deed giving rise to Case No.1490. In this mutation, case No. 1490 an application for stay of the proceedings was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the order dated 18.12.2013. Against the order dated 18.12.2013 the petitioner preferred revision No.1015 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad which has been dismissed by the impugned. Hence this writ petition.
I have heard Sri B.R.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and have perused the record.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the dispute as to who was entitled to be recorded over the land in dispute had not attained finality and the same is subjudice even today it was not proper for the respondent to have executed a sale deed of the same and since mutation has now been claimed on the basis of the said sale deed these mutation proceedings should be stayed till such time the initial dispute is decided. He states that the revision against the order refusing to stay the proceedings of the mutation case No. 1490 has been dismissed as being directed against an interlocutory order. The court below has not assigned any further reason for not adjudicating the issue raised on its merits.
On the strength of these submissions learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of the impugned order. He further states that in the circumstances of the case, the matter should be remanded to the Additional Commissioner for decision afresh.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the two proceedings are entirely separate. The registered sale deed has been executed by the recorded tenure holder and therefore mutation on the basis of such registered sale deed cannot be stalled during the pendency of any other proceedings. He has relied upon the following judgments (i) 2008(105) RD 698, Smt. Saroj Singh and another Vs. Board of Revenue Lucknow and (ii) 2006(24) LCD 1478 Mohit Bhargav versus Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act have only fiscal connotations. The persons who is recorded over the land in dispute is liable to pay land revenue and it is this person from whom recovery of unpaid land revenue, can be made by the State. The mutation entry does not confer title upon the person recorded.
This view is supported by the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. The relevant portions whereof are extracted below:
(i) 2008(105) RD 698 "20. Considering the above dictum of this Court in various decisions, it is clear that the mutation proceedings pending before the Deputy Collector cannot be put in limbo and have to be adjudicated upon irrespective of the fact that suit under section 49/59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act has been filed."
(ii) 2006(24) LCD 1478 "6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed before me Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue reported in R.D. 1992 page 299, Irfan Ali V. Rafeeq wherein it has been held that a Court under Land Revenue Act should not stay and should immediately and decisively decide the mutation application subject to modification, correction or regulation by the result of a regular suit which may take its own longer time."
It is therefore clear from the above that mutation proceedings cannot be stayed awaiting the decision of even regular title proceedings. It therefore necessarily follows that the mutation proceedings cannot and must not be stayed during pendency of another mutation case at the revisional stage. The mutation proceedings must also not be stayed because the same may effect the collection of revenue to which the State is entitled under law. Loss of revenue cannot be permitted on account of a private dispute.
The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an order of status quo operating in his favour and therefore the impugned order could not have been passed, nor the sale deed itself could have been executed.
A perusal of the order of status quo makes it abundantly clear that it has been rightly observed by the courts below that the mutation proceedings cannot be stayed on its basis. Status quo is with regard to the nature and possession over the land in question only. It does not stay the proceedings of a subsequent mutation case.
In view of the above discussion, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.2.2014 mna