Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30475 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajendra Nath Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has prayed for to implead Tehsildar as respondent in the present writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer as made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer as made above, is allowed and the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Tehsildar as respondent No. 4 in the array of parties of the present writ petition.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief;-
1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 5.8.2021, 25.7.2017 and 8.1.2016 passed by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar has illegally allowed the restoration application, vide order dated 8.1.2016, filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, Smt. Reeta Devi, who has no concern with the property in question. Order dated 8.1.2016 has illegally been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal. On revision being filed by the petitioner, same was dismissed.
Factual matrix of the case is that initially property in question was recorded in the name of Devendra Nath Tiwari. After his death, property in dispute devolved upon his wife Smt. Bittan Devi, whose name came to be recorded in the revenue record in place of her husband. During her life time Smt. Bittan Devi has executed a will deed dated 14.3.1985 in favour of her brother-in-law Rajendra Nath Tiwari (petitioner herein). In the year 1996 Smt. Bittan Devi died. The present petitioner has moved mutation application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act ( in brevity L.R. Act) claiming his right and title over the property in question on the basis of will deed dated 14.3.1985 executed by Smt. Bittan Devi. The aforesaid mutation application was allowed vide order dated 23.8.1997 passed by the Tehsildar. At belated stage, Smt. Reeta Devi daughter of Bittan Devi has filed restoration application dated 21.8.2015 claiming her right and title over the property in question being the daughter of Smt. Bittan Devi and Devendra Nath Tiwari. Restoration application was allowed vide order dated 8.1.2016. Consequently, mutation order dated 23.8.1997 was recalled.
Having being aggrieved with the order of recall, petitioner has filed appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who has dismissed the same vide order dated 25.7.2017. On revision being filed against the order dated 25.7.2017, learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision by impugned order dated 5.1.2021, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the recall order dated 8.1.2016 was affirmed by both the higher courts on the ground that neither any notice had been issued to Smt. Reeta Devi nor served upon her, who is vitally interested person in the property in question being the daughter of Smt. Bittan Devi and Devendra Nath Tiwari. No opportunity of hearing had been afforded to her before passing the order of mutation in favour of present petitioner.
I do not find any illegality, perversity or manifest error in the impugned orders passed by all the three courts in allowing the restoration application and providing an opportunity of hearing to Smt. Reeta Devi, who is claiming herself to be daughter of Smt. Bittan Devi and Devendra Nath Tiwari. Moreover, present petition is arising out of the mutation application, which is summary in nature and any order passed in mutation proceedings shall be subject to the decision of the regular suit. At this stage, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned orders passed by all the three courts in allowing the restoration application. There is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned orders.
The present writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to the costs.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Sumaira