Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38421 of 2019 Petitioner :- Madhu Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Dwivedi,Om Prakash Singh (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order proposed to be passed, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without issuing notices to the respondent nos. 5 to 9. It shall however be open for them to seek its recall, in case they feel aggrieved thereby.
It appears that petitioner filed a case for mutation under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act. This mutation case has been deferred on account of pendency of review petition before the High Court. The order aforesaid has been affirmed upon the dismissal of consequential appeal and revision.
It is settled law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, having purely fiscal connotation. The object of the proceedings is primarily to identify the person who is liable to pay land revenue or the person from whom arrears of land revenue can be recovered.
Under the circumstances, the mutation courts by not passing the orders in a mutation case merely on account of pendency of a review petition wherein it has been submitted that no interim order is operating, necessarily causes loss of land revenue to the exchequer.
In my considered opinion the approach of the three Courts below is totally unjustified as mutation proceedings do not determine the titles of the parties, thereto.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 07.01.2013, 19.04.2017 and 27.02.2019 are hereby quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar, Tehsil and District Meerut to pass appropriate order on the mutation case on its merit and to not defer the mutation case merely on account of pendency of review petition wherein no interim order is operating.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019/AKT