Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 29 of 2013 Petitioner :- Raj Nath And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C. Srivastava,S.V. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.L. Tiwari,Rajiv Gupta,S.K. Gupta
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties.
The instant writ petition arises out of a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, filed by the petitioner claiming on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in his favour by the contesting respondent. The petitioner was duly mutated.
It appears that the opposite party thereafter sought recall of the order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioner. He also filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed.
It is submitted that the sale deed was sought to be cancelled on the ground that it was a forged and fictitious document, which had never been executed by the respondent.
It is not in issue that this suit for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed for default and the restoration application was also dismissed. An application for recall of the order dismissing the recall application in default is pending consideration, as on date.
In this connection the submission of counsel for the opposite party is that the matter is being repeatedly dismissed for want of prosecution as he is the resident of Jaunpur and the suit is pending at Azamgarh.
Be that as it may, this Court does not see any justification as to why the proceedings before the mutation court should be kept pending. The proceedings which have been instituted by the opposite party through a recall application seeking recall of the mutation order in favour of the petitioner are quashed at this stage.
It will however, be open for the opposite party to get the mutation case reopened, in case he succeeds in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, which has been filed by him.
The writ petition stands allowed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Mayank