Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya passed in Revision no. 00306 of 2021 (Multa Devi Vs. Gudiya and others) as well as order dated 10.02.2021 passed by opposite party no.2/Tehsildar Sohawal, Tehsil- Sohawal, District Ayodhya passed on Restoration Case no. 01190 of 2018 .
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that mother of the petitioner,namely,Smt. Shukraji had executed a registered Will dated 01.12.1998 regarding Gata No. 262 area one beegha seven bishwa situated at Village Hazipur Singhpur, Pargana- Mangalsi, Tehsil- Sohawal District Faizabad in favour of the petitioner in which Hriday Ram, who is brother of the petitioner and husband of opposite party no.3 is also witness of the said Will. After the death her mother Smt. Sukhraji, petitioner moved an application for mutation which was allowed on 06.11.2007.Opposite party no.4 filed restoration application on 07.03.2017 after ten years which was rejected on 01.10.2019 but some other orders were transcribed in the ordersheet on the same day directing the matter to be listed for hearing.The restoration application continue to be listed and finally on 10.02.2021, the opposite party no.2 recalled his earlier order and restored the mutation case. The petitioner being aggrieved the order passed by opposite party no.2,approached the opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya by filing revision.On the 25.06.2021, the said revision has been rejected, although earlier learned trial court's record was summoned and the enquiry was conducted where it was found that certain employees of Tehsil office had done bungling.
This Court has carefully perused the order impugned and finds that the writ petition challenges the orders passed in mutation proceedings. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere in writ jurisdiction in the order passed in the mutation proceedings, as mutation proceedings is summary proceeding which does not confer any rights, title or interest. It is always open for the parties to file a suit before the appropriate court for declaration of their rights. Even if this Court interfere and pass an order in favour of litigants, the said order would always be subject to the final declaration of rights of the parties in regular proceedings before the competent court.
The Writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 dk/