Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20882 of 2015 Petitioner :- Kunwarpal And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.Singh Raghav,Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Raj Kumar
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 7th November, 2013, 8th May, 2014 and 28th February, 2015 passed by the Tehsildar, Sub- Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate respectively, by which the claim of the petitioners for mutation of their names in respect of the plot No. 272 area 0.170 hectares situated in the village Nagala Kashi, Tehsil- Dhaulana, District- Hapur has been rejected.
The claim set up by the petitioners was on the basis of the sale deed dated 19th November, 1984 executed by the recorded tenure holder, namely, Sheonath. However, it is admitted to the petitioners that the sale deed was unregistered one and the claim set up before the revenue authority, was on the basis of the possession handed over to the petitioner in the year 1984 itself by the recorded tenure holder.
In order to robe the claim with a legal attire the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of contract and was registered as O.S. Nos. 372 of 2013, 373 of 2013, 374 of 2013 and 395 of 2013 filed by respective petitioners but all those suits came to be dismissed vide order dated 2nd February, 2017 against which appeals were also dismissed and now second appeals are pending before this Court without any interim order.
The above factual position is not disputed by the present petitioners. However, they submit that the orders passed by the authorities suffer from vice of perversity.
The mutation proceedings are absolutely summary in nature. However, legal claims for mutating the names cannot be denied by any arbitrary exercise of power by revenue authority but where the claim is set up on the basis of unregistered sale deed, the authorities cannot be held to have acted with perversity in rejecting the mutation application based on such claims.
Moreover, in the considered opinion of the Court, when the matter is sub judice before the Court in the second appeal and names of the respondents have come to be recorded in the revenue record vide registered sale deed dated 7th June, 2013, no interference is required at this stage with the orders impugned herein this petition.
Needless to add that the orders passed by the revenue authorities would be guided by the orders to be passed in the second appeal on the regular side of the suit.
This Court, therefore, at this stage declines to interfere with the orders impugned and, accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to record.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Atmesh