Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16448 of 2021 Petitioner :- Krishna Pal And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Mukund Singh
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for sixth, seventh and eighth respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
By the instant writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 18 February 2021, passed by the second respondent-Commissioner, Bareilly Division Bareilly, reversing the order of the trial court dated 28 October 2014, passed by the third respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bahori, District Bareilly, in Appeal No. 12 of 2002.
The dispute pertains to Gata No. 76/0.604 hectare and Gata No. 80/0.126 hectare situated in village Lakhimpur, Pargana Chaumehla, Tehsil Baheri, District Bareilly.
Petitioners entered into an agreement to sale with ninth respondent for sale of the above noted property. The tenth respondent is the wife of the ninth respondent and they belong to scheduled caste community. Section 157(A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, mandates that prior permission has to be sought from the competent authority before the property belonging to a scheduled caste is transferred.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without taking any approval from the competent authority a registered agreement to sale was entered between the parties on 1 March 1996. It is submitted that possession of the disputed property was also handed over. It appears that in the meantime the tenth respondent obtained an order from the competent court for appointing her as guardian of her husband (ninth respondent) under the Mental Health Act, 1987. The order came to be passed on 2 August 1999. It appears, thereafter, on 5 November 1999, the ninth respondent entered into another registered agreement to sale with the mother of sixth, seventh and eighth respondents, thereafter, a registered sale-deed came to be executed on 19 November 1999 transferring the property. On the death of the vendee, property devolved upon sixth to eighth respondents. Thereafter, a civil suit for specific performance was instituted by the petitioners against ninth and tenth respondents in respect of the property. It is informed that further proceedings of the suit has been kept in abeyance by this Court Pursuant to the registered sale-deed, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents filed an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation of their names. It is not in dispute that the sale-deed came to be executed after obtaining approval under Section 157A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The revisional court has affirmed the appellate order and directed that names of the legal heirs of the vendee i.e. sixth, seventh and eighth respondents be mutated on the strength of the registered sale-deed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made two fold submissions (i) that in view of the registered agreement to sale the ninth respondent could not have transferred the property to a third party; (ii) that the sale-deed is void-ab-inito as it has not been executed by the tenth respondent, who came to be appointed guardian of the ninth respondent.
Be that as it may, it is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that proceedings under Section 34 for mutation is a summary proceedings and it does not decide the title of the parties. Admittedly, as on date the property in dispute has been duly transferred after approval of the competent authority in favour of the sixth, seventh and eighth respondent. It is on the strength of the registered sale-deed, the mutation has been directed in the revenue records for the reason that the erstwhile owner has no interest in the property and it is for the vendee to protect their interest and the property. The submission that is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners being disputed question of fact and law can be gone into in the pending civil suit and not in writ jurisdiction.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 S.Prakash Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2021.07.30 17:20:09 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad