Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25898 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- District Magistrate/ Collector Gorakhpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Prasad Shukla,Himanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai,Imran Ali,Radheshyam Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Azad Rai learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Radheshyam Yadav for respondent no.3.
The present petition is directed against the order passed by the appellate authority namely the Collector Gorakhpur, under Section 318 of the Town Area Act with regard to a property situated in Ward no.3 entered at serial no.7 and 8 of the Assessment register namely house no.7 and 7/1 recorded in the name of Ramdas son of Jagai, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, in the year 1992.
The order impugned categorically records that initially name of Ramdas son of Jagai was recorded over house no.10/1 in the assessment register of the year 1968-69. The changes were made in survey bandobast of the year 1989-92 by recording his name in house no.7 and 7/1 by the then Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Gola.
Prior to that i.e. in the year 1988-89, the house no.7 and 7/1 were recorded in the name of Vansh Dei, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no.3. After death of Vansh Dei in the year 1991, instead of recording names of her successors, the name of Ramdas son of Jagai, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had been recorded.
These finding returned by the District Magistrate, Gorkahpur namely the Appellate Authority are sought to be challenged in the present petition with the assertion that long drawn municipal entries cannot be altered by the municipal authorities. Submission is that the entries in the name of Ramdas regarding house no.7 and 7/1 at serial no.7 and 8 of the Assessment register had been made in the year 1989-92. The application was moved by the respondent raising allegation of illegal entries on 01.08.2008, which was rejected vide order dated 27.05.2015 after making due enquiry, it was, therefore, not open for the appellant authority to take a different opinion.
Considering these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and noticing the fact that initially in the year 1968-69, house no.10/1 was recorded in the name of Ramdas and the name of Vansh Dei successors of Jagai was recorded in house no.7, the question would arise as to whether house no.10/1 had been given new number as 7 or 7/1 in the year 1989-92. The said question could not be answered by the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as, the municipal entries of the house-in-question between the year 1968-69 and 1989-92 are not on record.
The assertion of the petitioner that the house no.10/1 had been given new number in the year 1989/92 is not substantiated from any material on record. Moreover, the appellate authority has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the entries were changed in the year 1991 and the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest namely Ramdas was recorded for the first time in the year 1992 at the instance of the then Chairman Nagar Palika Gola after death of the then recorded owner.
In view of the said finding, this Court is of the view that the issues being raised by the petitioners with regard to the ownership of house no.7 and 7/1 are intricate questions of facts which cannot be answered by the mutation authorities. Moreover, it is settled law that the order of mutation does not confer any indefeasible right upon any of the party. It would, therefore, be open for the petitioner to file a suit before the appropriate court seeking appropriate relief with regard to the disputed property.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Himanshu