Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14670 of 2019 Petitioner :- Niranjan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Alka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14578 of 2019 Petitioner :- Niranjan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Alka Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Both these writ petitions arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act for mutation.
The writ petition is directed against an order whereby a restoration application filed by one Mahak Singh was allowed in the year 2016. The consequential revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected and hence this writ petition.
Counsel for petitioner has raised two issues. First, whether the restoration application of Mahak Singh was rightly allowed and second whether the revision filed by the petitioner was, in fact, maintainable.
This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the aforesaid so called legal pleas.
This is so because the proceedings where from the writ petitions arise are summary proceedings for mutation. These proceedings are purely fiscal in nature and do not determine the title of the parties thereto.
In any case, the petitioner still has every opportunity of canvassing his claim before court whether the matter stands revived, consequent to the restoration of Mahak Singh having been allowed.
In view of above noted facts, no serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned orders. Therefore, this Court finds no justification to interfere and declines to entertain the writ petitions. Petitioner may contest proceedings which stand revived as a consequence of the orders impugned.
Subject to the above, the petitions stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 sweta