Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5668 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- Member Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Rai,Samarath Singh,Vishnu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Samarath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of this writ petition, which arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue and the judgment and order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Tehsildar.
The opposite party filed a mutation application seeking his mutation in place of the petitioner on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in his favour on 27.05.2005 by the petitioner.
Against this order, the petitioner filed a recall application alleging that the mutation order has been passed ex-parte on account of manipulated service of notice upon him. The restoration application was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing it.
This restoration application was allowed and opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his objection.
The Tehsildar thereafter, again allowed the mutation application.
The petitioner again filed an application for recall of this order alleging that reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence had not been given to him.
It appears that it was also the case of the petitioner that the Tehsildar had decided the case during the pendency of a transfer application filed by the petitioner, although, the transfer application was ultimately dismissed.
The petitioner also filed a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the order dated 19.08.2016 allowing the mutation application of the opposite party.
This revision has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the plea of the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of adducting evidence had not been provided to him cannot be accepted. In any case, the petitioner had been granted time to file an objection which had been filed by him.
Upon a consideration of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent is pending consideration.
Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference because the proceedings where from the writ petition arises are summary proceedings which do not determine the title of the parties, thereto.
In any case, the parties are already litigating before the competent court regarding the validity or otherwise of the sale deed which is the basis of the mutation application filed by the opposite party. It is settled law that the orders passed by the mutation courts are always subject to the orders passed in regular title proceeding, which proceeding is admittedly pending between the parties.
The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
In case, any interim protection is required by the petitioner, it is always open for him to apply for the same in the suit filed by him.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Mayank